Wright, P. ‘Gynocentrism As A Narcissistic Pathology,’ in New Male Studies An International Journal, ISSN 1839-7816 ~ Vol 9, Issue 1, 2020, Pp. 24–49, 2020 Australian Institute Of Male Health And Studies
In this article I will be examining Lester Ward’s theory on gynocentrism (see these links here1 and here2). I have chosen to write this to demonstrate that views on the supposed superiority of women are not isolated to just the last fifty years. The undeserved deification of women has been going on for far longer than fifty years. My issues with Ward’s theory are too numerous to write in one article, so I will provide my general criticism of his work. You will also notice that many of my future articles, including this one, are going to be considerably shorter than before. These articles are to encourage people to think more deeply about specific topics in the manosphere. I have laid the general foundations on my views on gynocentrism in my previous writings and have gone into great detail. It be should be sufficient now for me to provide a general outline on further topics I will discuss. Rest assured I could go into enormous detail on any given topic (as can be seen from my previous work), but I would rather cover more topics and rely on people to refer to my previous writings on gynocentrism if they need more information.
The Three Problems In Claiming Female Or Male Superiority
Lester Ward puts an argument forward about why women are the naturally superior sex in his theory. There are three major problems with claiming one sex is superior to the other. The first problem is defining what makes one sex superior to the other. Who decides what set of traits are important and what traits are less important? Who decides what combination of traits are relevant to determining which sex is superior? Who decides what even makes something superior? Claims of the overall superiority of a group are nebulous subjective value judgements. There is no universal definition that can be agreed upon, on what makes one group of people superior to the other. It makes far more coherent sense to claim superiority in relation to a specific metric, than to claim one sex is generally superior to the other. If I were to state that men on average have a superior height to that of women for instance, then that claim is far less vague and nebulous than stating that men are superior to women or vice versa.
The second problem with arguing one sex is superior, is that each sex are two interdependent and essential components of one biological system that replicates itself. We are not talking about two sets of organisms that exist independently of each other, where one can gain at the others’ expense over the long term. The relative success or failure of males and females which defines their value, is to some degree dependent on the relative success or failure of the other sex. It is the evolutionary success or failure of the whole biological system that males and females are components of, that determines the success or failure of males and females and thus their value.
The reductionist mindset cannot fathom the interdependent nature of a biological system and the emergent properties of such a system. The sum output of a system is greater than its individual components (synergy) and the components alone do not produce the desired output. The battle of the sexes, is really just a dysfunction of a bigger biological system that is temporarily out of equilibrium. Like cancer, intersexual conflict over the long term is a disturbance from the proper functioning of the biological system of the species. Just as cancerous tissue cannot ultimately gain at the expense of the body, neither can one sex ultimately gain at the expense of the other sex over the long term and not destroy the biological system that comprises the species as a whole.
The third problem with making claims of male or female superiority, is its usefulness. How useful is such a nebulous generalised subjective value judgement of entire halves of the population? It has no sustainable social or economic utility, because such claims are made about each sex in general and are subjective and not focused on just a specific metric or evidence that has practical implications. Claims of male or female superiority are nebulous. What do I mean by nebulous? There is a difference between suggesting that only women should run society because they are “superior”, without reference to any metric or solid evidence and suggesting men have superior physical strength and therefore need their own weightlifting events. One claim is specific to a metric (physical strength in this example) and backed up by evidence and facts and has practical implications, the other claim has none of those characteristics.
We also have to consider the destructive effects of claiming one sex is superior to other on society. How destructive is such a bigoted value judgement? We have centuries of history demonstrating how corrosive and how destructive claims of the superiority of one group of people over the other are. Genocides have occurred on the basis of group superiority and the alleged inferiority of the other group. Our society requires a certain level of cooperation, fairness and civility to function and remain stable and intact. Claims of group superiority of any kind whether it is based on race or sex (or some other characteristic), undermine these critical features that form the foundation of civilisation.
There has to be mutual respect and reciprocity for different groups of people to work together to form and run civilisation. Men and women cannot on their own form their own civilisations and so it becomes essential to maintain mutual respect and reciprocity between the sexes. Once you remove the basic level of respect men should have toward women and women should have toward men, you undermine the core relationship between the sexes that forms the basis of the nuclear family and civilisation itself. There is no relationship more fundamental to civilisation than that between men and women. For this reason we can in part measure the health of society, based on the health of the relationship between men and women. Claims of male or female superiority undermine the relationship between the sexes and thus society and the foundations of civilisation. This is why radical feminism, gynocentrism and claims of female superiority or male superiority, need to be addressed and not ignored.
The Greater Variability Of The Male Sex Does Not Make Them Inferior
Lester Ward’s theory argues that women are superior to men because the female sex is more conserved in nature and the male sex is more variable. That is essentially what his core argument boils down to. Evolution is driven by natural selection and natural selection drives adaptation and adaptation is the result of variation. The fact that the biological role of females is less variable in nature, does not then result in females being the naturally superior sex. Sexual reproduction and the origins of biological sex, result from the evolutionary advantage of variation that arises from them. Being more variable does not make males inferior. The greater biological variation of the male sex in nature, simply demonstrates the importance of the male sex and its role in reproduction, in providing the variation required for a species to adapt to its environment and also enhance a species evolutionary success in general.
Females Are Not The Source Of Life
Lester also seems to hold a view that the female sex has existed long before the male sex and so that somehow makes them superior. Bacteria have existed long before humans, does that make bacteria superior to humans? Just because something has been around longer, does not make it superior. Aside from that reality, females have been around as long as males. The female sex literally cannot exist without sexual reproduction and the existence of the male sex. This should be obvious.
Ward shares a view in his theory, that females have been the main trunk of life. There is a trap in thinking that if less males passed on their genes, then males had a lower contribution to the continuation of the lineage. People fail to consider that in instances where fewer males reproduced, males that did reproduce did so at a higher frequency than females (where sexual reproduction involves an individual male and female, as it does in our species). Thus the total contribution of the male and female sex to the continuation of the lineage is exactly the same, regardless as to how many males versus females reproduce in a species like ours where each instance of reproduction involves one male and one female.
In relation to Ward’s view that females are the main trunk of life, Ward seems to think that asexual life can be considered “female” and therefore asexual life should be counted towards the female contribution to the continuation of life. It is scientifically and factually incorrect to conflate asexual life and the female sex as being interchangeable.
Lester says the following in his writings:
“Origin of the Male Sex. — Although reproduction and sex are two distinct things, and although a creature that reproduces without sex cannot properly be called either male or female, still, so completely have these conceptions become blended in the popular mind that a creature which actually brings forth offspring out of its own body is instinctively classed as female. The female is the fertile sex, and whatever is fertile is looked upon as female. Assuredly it would be absurd to look upon an organism propagating asexually as male. Biologists have proceeded from this popular standpoint, and regularly speak of “mother-cells” and “daughter-cells.” It therefore does no violence to language or to science to say that life begins with the female organism and is carried on a long distance by means of females alone. In all the different forms of asexual reproduction, from fission to parthenogenesis, the female may in this sense be said to exist alone and perform all the functions of life including reproduction. In a word, life begins as female.” 1,3
There is a big difference between the biology of an asexually reproducing organism and a biological female that sexually reproduces. It does do violence to language and to science to attempt to conflate the two. Most of the asexually reproducing species on this planet are simple forms of life and reproduce very differently to sexual reproduction. In contrast, most of the complex forms of life on Earth are sexually reproducing species. There is a big difference between the biology of bacteria asexually reproducing in a petri dish and a human female and how they reproduce. It makes no sense to categorise life that existed 3.8 billion years ago as “female”, or any other form of asexually reproducing life. Life did not begin female, it began with asexually replicating single celled organisms and in the absence of biological sex. Females did not come before males, females originated at the same time as males did. The existence of the female sex, requires the existence of the male sex.
Females in our species and in many other sexually reproducing species, cannot reproduce or “create life” without the male. Females do not “create life” in our species, human males and females create life. This basic reality seems lost on Ward. Ward’s related and skewed presentation that males simply act as fertiliser, fails to properly represent the breadth of what males contribute. Males do other things other than provide sperm, especially in higher order species and in humans (i.e like paternal investment in offspring). Ward does not appear interested in exploring or examining that in any detail, aside from giving it a passing remark.
There Is No Universal Law Of Male Inferiority
A major flaw in Ward’s theory, is his use of different examples in nature of males and females to demonstrate the supposed superiority of the female sex. Examples in nature can be found to demonstrate the exact opposite (i.e “male superiority”), but he does not seem interested in citing those examples. This is confirmation bias, selectively filtering information to confirm an existing belief or conclusion. Ward seems quite willing to accept that the greater variation in males, may lead to instances where females are in a “superior” position to males in certain respects in particular species. In contrast Ward seems uninterested in giving equal consideration to examples where this same greater variation of males, may put males in a superior position to females in certain respects in other species. Who is to say either that what Ward considers is a weakness of a male of a particular species in one context, might actually be a strength is another context. A male spider of a species might be smaller and therefore considered “inferior” by Ward, but that same trait may allow the male spider greater mobility than the female to roam through its habitat and confer certain advantages.
Biology across all of nature is extraordinarily variable across species, families, phyla and kingdoms etc. To draw examples from widely different branches of nature and then form some grand unified theory that males are naturally inferior to females based on cherry picked examples as Ward does, is rife with problems. The evolutionary forces at work across different branches of life can be vastly different. It cannot be assumed that observing a similar pattern between the sexes in two or more different species (that allegedly demonstrate male inferiority), is the result of the same cause and that this cause is male inferiority from greater male variation. It is likely there are completely different forces at work that produce a similar pattern across the species he cites, given how different the biology and habitat of each species he refers to actually are. This would especially be the case when citing examples of males and females from completely different kingdoms as Ward does (species from the plant kingdom versus the animal kingdom)!
Why The Sexes Are Different But Equal
Ward’s theory on gynocentrism, is an example of the warped thinking that occurs when the brain is on gynocentrism- Reality goes out the window and people get selective with facts. I could write far more about why Ward’s theory is fundamentally flawed, but what I have written should suffice. Ultimately one can make arguments that men are superior to women and women are superior to men, but only in certain defined respects (i.e the greater physical strength of men or the greater immunity of women to infectious disease). However when it comes to the overall value of each sex in our species, neither sex is more valuable. For this reason, it does not make much sense to claim either sex is superior in general. In our species the male and female sex each produce exactly the same total number of copies of the genome/number of offspring (the source of biological value) and consequently our biology produces males and females in roughly equal proportion. See Fishers principle4 for more information on why this is so. As mentioned, even in instances where greater numbers of women reproduce in our species, the fewer men that reproduce will do so at a higher frequency than any individual woman and the total reproductive output of each sex will still remain equal.
Our biology does not favour the production of “superior” males or “superior” females over the other sex (hence the roughly 1:1 sex ratio at birth), because each sex produces the same biological value (i.e number of offspring or copies of the genome). Any subjective value judgement of male or female superiority, is our own social invention. As males and females are produced in equal proportion in our species and have the same total reproductive output, each sex faces equivalent selective forces to develop and harness their different strengths in equal proportion to propagate the genome. Nature abhors a vacuum and will select against any scenario where half the population does not pull its own evolutionary weight. Consequently males and females may have different strengths, but over time selective pressures ensure these sets of strengths of each sex have equal value in terms of propagating the genome and the lineage. Ultimately propagating the genome is where all biological value comes from and so each sex has equal biological value. For more discussion on this topic on the biological equality of the sexes, consult this two part article of mine (linked here5 and here6).
It is possible for the sexes to be different in relation to each other, but equal in relation to biological value. This is no different from two houses being different, but having the same monetary value. People who argue that differences between people make equality impossible, fail to consider people can be different in some metrics and equal in other metrics. People can indeed be different in one respect and equal in another respect. Reductionist bigots generally don’t like the complexity of realities like that, but that does not make these realities any less true.
- Pure sociology; a treatise on the origin and spontaneous development of society (1903)
The Fifth Horseman
“Never Go Full Retard”– From the movie Tropic Thunder
When we discuss the apocalypse we sometimes refer to The Four Horsemen- Death, War, Famine and Plague. We have two of those right now, but is there one missing from that list? Is there a fifth horsemen we can add? I think there is. I would call it madness. The world has gone mad. Our world is now led to a significant extent by crazy people with crazy ideas. We call it clown world and as we can see with the toilet paper, madness does reign in 2020. Madness brings chaos and chaos brings the fall of society. There is no greater example of madness in modern society, than woke culture and identity politics. This has become the subject of Douglas Murray’s book, The Madness Of Crowds1. We are at a critical juncture in history and what is going on needs to be thoroughly examined and addressed. The first thing we have to acknowledge with madness, is that madness is never supposed to make any sense. Do not go looking for rational and sane causes for irrationality and insanity.
Madness has nothing do with reason and exists in the absence of reason. Year after year attempts have been made to use reason to cure the far-left ideological madness in society. This will never work, just ask the violent mob that divisive identity politics nurtures. All of these intellectual critiques of woke culture and identity politics will fail to bring about their downfall. Appealing to reason to challenge woke culture, is like trying to fight a fire with straw. It is the freedom from the consequences of irrational and pathological ideas and beliefs, that has resulted in the proliferation of madness in our society. When academics can espouse madness in our institutions for decades and when bureaucrats can introduce absurd policies with impunity and there is no accountability for the results of their ideology, madness will grow in society and that is exactly what has happened. Appealing to reason with people, requires that they be open to examining their own beliefs and questioning them. This will only occur when people bear the costs of their own beliefs and cannot push them onto society for their benefit and at our expense.
Unchecked power corrupts and the people promoting the madness we are witnessing in modern society are doing so from privileged positions and with impunity. There are no consequences for these people and no costs they incur from their own ideology, so why should they care about whether their ideology has a positive or negative effect on society? This is the key mechanism of how madness proliferates in society- Lack of accountability for beliefs and ideas. Gynocentrism2 is a bad set of beliefs and ideas that gains traction in a society that permits madness to proliferate. It is certainly not the only set of bad ideas that thrives in madness, but it is definitely a prime example of one of them.
The peace, freedoms and prosperity we have enjoyed for decades after World War Two as a result of massive technological and social change, has resulted in a relaxation of our vigilance to weed out bad ideas and beliefs. We have dropped our guard as a society and have failed to hold people accountable for promoting bad ideas and beliefs. This is because we have become less concerned with our own survival and have lost our sense of the danger madness represents and the threat it poses to society. Don’t get me wrong, people should have the freedom to say what they like, no matter how stupid or wrong they may be. However I do think people should not be free of accountability for what they promote and implement from positions of authority in the mainstream media, academia, the boardroom, the legal system and in politics etc. Too often woke culture, identity politics and the Marxist far-left, gets a free pass for the results of their ideas and policies whilst holding privileged positions of authority and are kept in a protective bubble free from accountability. That has to change and to change things we have to diagnose what is going on. We have to be able to identify the factors that are driving the madness in society and fuelling the growth of sets of pathological ideas like gynocentrism, if we want to identify the madness in our society and then hold people accountable for promoting it.
The Forces Of Madness
There are eight core social factors or forces that need to be discussed in explaining the power of the current societal madness we are experiencing and that drive the growth in the madness we have observed. Every single one of these eight social forces also drives gynocentrism and the pathological aspects of our culture that are like it. The power of gynocentrism is not all about just sex and neoteny, there is more to it than that. Although these social forces exist independently of gynocentrism, we have to discuss them to properly understand the power behind gynocentrism and what drives it. So what are these eight forces that drive gynocentrism and the growth of madness in society? They are as follows:
Lack of accountability for beliefs and ideas– I have already discussed this and it is the most important force of the eight that I will identify and describe. When people get into academia, into teaching, into the media, into politics, onto boards, into management, into our legal system and into policy, they have to be held accountable for the beliefs and ideas they promote and implement. An elite class has emerged over the last fifty years that appears to be beyond accountability for the ideas and beliefs they push onto society. The consequences of their ideas and their beliefs are never felt by these people and they are never confronted and held to account for them. These elites are the “establishment”. These are the people that consider themselves our moral superiors and live in an echo chamber and a protective bubble where they can virtue signal with impunity and chastise the unwashed masses in society that won’t comply with the ideology they promote. This elite also makes certain to censor any dissenting opinion and “cancel” or ostracise anyone offering a view that runs counter to their narrative. For decades this elite have indoctrinated society through their control of the education system and our media to hold distorted, dangerous and damaging ideas and beliefs. There has been no major resistance or accountability for this indoctrination whatsoever.
Blind faith in authority– People will follow what they perceive to be official and authoritative, even when the information or opinions presented are clearly ridiculous or nonsensical. When people are afraid, angry, uncertain or emotionally invested in a certain belief system, they will turn to authoritative figures and movements to solve problems. If the mainstream media says it, then it must be true. That’s the thinking that embodies what I am describing here. It is the thinking one finds in cults and when such thinking becomes mainstream in society, it is devastating. There is a substantial amount of society who will believe what they are told regardless as to what it is, provided it comes from a position of perceived authority. The genocides instigated by the Nazi party and religious extremism, are horrific examples of what blind faith in authority can lead to and how powerful it is.
Herd mentality– People will go along with what other people think and do, simply to fit in and belong. People are also to some degree cognitive misers. People will think as little as possible in certain circumstances, if they feel they have no incentive to think with any effort. When thinking independently is not perceived to be useful or worth the effort, people will follow what other people think and follow whatever social trend is popular. That is one example of herd mentality- Following the group simply because it involves less effort. Herd mentality is why we have no supermarkets with toilet paper in a pandemic caused by a primarily respiratory virus! Human behaviour does not require logic when herd mentality takes over. Herd mentality fosters groupthink and strict social policing to enforce conformity on the group. Herd mentality does not allow any dissent from collective insanity, delusion and hysteria and thus becomes incredibly dangerous when it grows to a certain level and starts impacting political and economic decisions with long term implications.
Tribalism– When group identity becomes the predominant theme in society, then everything begins to revolve around group identity. People are judged not by what they say and do, but what identity they belong to. We called it discrimination in the past, but apparently discrimination is now equality. When group identity becomes the primary value system of society, expect hypocrisy and double standards to become the new normal. It eventually becomes impossible under such conditions to have meaningful discussions on anything and address societal problems. I don’t think I have to explain in detail how obsessed our society and institutions etc are with group identity at the moment. Tribalism paralyses society and prevents us from properly functioning. Eventually it fractures society and leads to mass violence. We have already had a taste this year in 2020, of what to expect if this tribalistic “us” versus “them” mentality is allowed continue unchallenged.
Surface Thinking– People will skim the surface of a subject based on the information immediately and easily available to them and form snap judgements. Little analysis or scrutiny will be done of the information people are exposed to. Information is just absorbed and repeated in such circumstances. This is a further example of being a cognitive miser. Thinking is hard. There are a lot of lazy people in our decadent society and these lazy people form lazy half-baked opinions about ideas they have not even properly bothered to examine. We know all about surface thinking in the manosphere. How many times does the gender wage gap need to be debunked? How many times?
Surface thinking is why the media can so easily manipulate the beliefs of society about particular issues. How many people bother these days to scrutinise the information they are presented with, or research a topic beyond the information directly disseminated to them, before they form a strong opinion on something? Quite often the goldfish attention span of modern society drives surface thinking. If you can’t explain something to someone in one minute, then they do not wish to know of it. That’s the mentality of a surface thinker. Thinking requires effort and sadly it seems many people lack either the attention span or the motivation to examine things in any detail. Surface thinking is exemplified by the massive void in society of any deep level of intellectual curiosity that extends beyond the frontiers of current knowledge and a lack of motivation to explore the unknown.
Short Term Thinking– We are the society of the short-termers. Short term thinking is evident in sayings like, “She’ll be right”, “I will be dead by then” and “Not my problem”. This type of mentality has become pretty widespread in society. Well I got some news- She won’t be right, you won’t be dead by then and it will be your problem. COVID-19 has put the spanner in the world of the short-termers and suddenly people need to start thinking long term again. Suddenly people are starting to recognise for instance, that saving money, having an emergency cash reserve and not getting into high levels of unsustainable debt, is a good idea.
It is truly incredible how little thought has been given from the top of our society and all the way down to the general public, on our long term future. For decades there has been an apathetic attitude toward the future from the public and also from our leaders. There has been far too little consideration of the long term implications and consequences of decisions made in the present and little responsibility or accountability demonstrated for those decisions. This is particularly the case with our politicians. Just look at the mushrooming levels of government debt we have accumulated over recent decades and continue to accumulate, with no regard from our politicians on how that debt will be paid back or its effect on future generations. Woke culture and identity politics have thrived in the absence of any long term thinking. Frankly it remains to be seen whether COVID-19 will result in any substantial shift in the mentality of society to plan long term and think of the future. Due to this apathy, we have a society of people that will not address reality until it comes crashing into their lives in a major way, like it just has with COVID-19. In the end reality asserts itself.
Reductionism– People will reduce complex information down to simple categories and single causes. There is no recognition of the wider system or the multifactorial nature of a problem or issue and no consideration for the nuance and detail of a subject. This is how we got the current polarised society we now live in. Our media, our political system and our academic institutions, are now filled with arrogant ideological fools that reduce every single matter down to a left wing or right wing issue or down to identity politics. There is no room for any proper intellectual and thoughtful discussion of any issue of significance in public discourse because of this. That is a big problem and we need to address it as a society.
Emotional Thinking– People will let emotions direct their thinking to some degree and this has become much more the case over the last 50 years. Emotional thinking is especially prevalent when people are afraid, angry and have spent decades being indoctrinated into an ideology they are emotionally attached to and that has been promoted with impunity for decades in our institutions. People have an emotionally invested position on certain topics and can consequently be very resistant and hostile to hearing alternative points of view on those topics. You know you have started discussing a topic of this nature, when the people around you suddenly go from 0 to 100 on an emotional scale. This where the safe space and trigger word bullshit comes from. It is also a key reason gynocentrism is so hard to challenge with reason and with facts. Gynocentrism is saturated in emotional thinking. For many of the emotionally challenged on the left side of the political spectrum, merely offering a different opinion now automatically makes you a Nazi. Emotional thinking leads to a reductionist and highly polarised way of thinking.
People have emotional biases and the extent to which they let their emotions bound their thinking, is the extent to which they become wilfully ignorant and intolerant of dissenting opinions. Reality does not care about emotions and sooner or later reality inevitably asserts itself for these people. Unfortunately it is usually only after much destruction, that emotionally charged thinking finally gives way to reason. People who let their emotions drive their thinking, believe in fantasy over reality. It is not the rejection of facts that is the problem with emotional thinking, it is the selective filtering of facts. Such people absorb emotionally appealing information and filter out information that does not conform to their beliefs or ideas that they hold an emotional investment in. We call this confirmation bias.
The role of fatherlessness in creating a society of emotional thinkers is worth mentioning. Fathers have played a key role in socialising children into rational and responsible adults that develop beyond emotional thinking. The absence of fathers has created generations of people that have a stunted psychological development and this is now showing with the new generations of young adults. This what our future looks like, when we remove fathers from children- A society of madness and of chaos.
These eight forces are rife in our society at the moment. They are not only observable with the general public, we can also see them at work within our own governments, corporate sector, academic institutions and especially from our mainstream media and politicians. These forces drive mobs to burn buildings, destroy and vandalise statues and property, assault innocent people, take over city blocks and call it all progressive justice. They are also the same forces that drive mobs of people to buy toilet paper and to behave and think like complete idiots in a pandemic. The level of idiocy has been almost unbearable for me to watch this year. We really have reached new heights of mass stupidity in 2020. Emotion and particularly fear and anger, are at a multidecade high. All that the media is doing is just fanning the flames and they are doing it deliberately for their own agenda and the agenda of their owners. More on that later.
Do We Deserve What We Have?
If people really are this stupid then perhaps society should collapse. Do we really deserve what we have inherited from past generations when we react so emotionally and without reason, as we have done in 2020? It is a question now worth asking. What I am talking about can be illustrated with the example of COVID-19 and our reaction to it. How would people that lived during the Spanish Flu, World War One and Two and the Great Depression react to COVID-19? Would they have locked down their entire society to the same degree as we have, or would they have made smarter and harder decisions? There was a toughness to earlier generations, that frankly our modern society lacks. They accepted far greater levels of mortality and continued to run their economies and keep their societies open to at least some degree, even when bombs were literally raining down on their cities.
Even during the Spanish flu when at least 17 million people died (Many estimates are much higher than that) and the world population was much less than it is today, countries put in place some restrictions, but they did not go to the same extremes as what we are witnessing today all over the world in responding to COVID-19. COVID-19 as of July 2020, has not even caused 5% of the deaths observed from the Spanish flu (Based on the conservative estimate of 17 million deaths from Spanish flu) and we have a far larger world population today than during the Spanish flu pandemic. Of course we need to take COVID-19 seriously, but we also need to have some perspective and keep things in proportion and recognise we have had far worse pandemics historically (Like the Black Death which killed between a third to one half of Europe). We seem to lack in modern society, a readiness to make hard decisions and accept hard realities. We have become soft. There will likely be a second, a third and a fourth wave of this virus and more waves after that until there is a vaccine or the pandemic has run its course. Sooner or later we are going to have to choose between keeping society locked down to save lives, versus the very real prospect of a great depression or even the complete collapse of our national economies from a protracted lockdown and all of the death that will result from that.
Aside from toughness, there was also an intelligence and rationality to the decisions of our leaders during the numerous difficult periods of the early 20th century. This intelligence and rationality seem absent today. We have known the age profile and the health profile of those that are hospitalised and die from COVID-19 since April of this year. We know the majority of those that are infected and are then hospitalised or die, are elderly and/or suffer some kind of health condition (obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and lung disease often from smoking etc). We know that the majority of healthy people that are under 60 years of age with no health condition and get infected with COVID-19, will not die or be hospitalised. A substantial number of these people may not even have any symptoms or will be mildly sick. This is not conjecture, these are facts that anyone can check up on. We have had this same pattern confirmed multiple times across the world and have now had time to prepare our hospitals. We now have the knowledge of COVID-19 and the public health capacity, to be more targeted in our measures to react to the pandemic. Despite these realities, we continue to live in fear whipped up by the media and continue to lock all of society down and risk the possibility of another major depression or even socioeconomic collapse.
Sooner or later we will have to confront our thinking on what we are doing, because the long-term consequences of the lockdowns will begin unfolding in major ways. Remember this lockdown was meant to give our hospitals time to prepare and not to eradicate the virus (which is what the media and political narrative has now morphed into). A lockdown will never eradicate this virus. It is also not a socially or economically sustainable long-term solution to the pandemic, to lock down society every single time there is a “wave” of the virus. This is a hard reality that sooner or later we will have to confront.
Interestingly none of the fear of the virus we now seem to again be consumed by and none of the lockdown restrictions seemed to matter, when we had violent mass protests a month ago all over the world during a pandemic, because of the unjust and tragic death of a single individual in one country. What does that stark contrast say about the intelligence and emotional state of modern society? It is complete nonsensical madness! How much of this reaction to COVID-19 is just emotional hysteria whipped up by the media and our politicians, which they ramp up and down with news cycles to suit their agenda? No one seemed to care about social distancing during the protests and our collective fear and concern only seems to arise when we are told to be fearful by our media and politicians. What does our reaction to COVID-19 say about our current society in comparison to past society? I think it speaks volumes on how regressed society has become intellectually and culturally. In many ways we have made intellectual and cultural progress as a society in comparison to the past, but in other respects we have gone in the exact opposite direction and regressed, or have not met the standards we claim to have reached.
I am not suggesting we be cavalier with COVID-19 and the risks it presents, but we need to be tougher, less emotional and more intelligent in how we are reacting to it. A more targeted approach to managing the risk that COVID-19 represents based on considering the age and health profile of those most at risk, seems far more sensible than repeatedly locking down all of society when there is inevitably another wave of the virus. We could put in measures to isolate and properly support those most at risk, along with positive cases, overseas travellers and medical and aged care staff. We could reopen the rest of society and still encourage social distancing where possible and preventative measures like wearing masks and washing hands when people are out and about during the pandemic. Yes that does mean more cases, but not a huge spike in hospitalisations and deaths.
There are reports that some people with mild or asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 can exhibit signs of tissue damage with their organs. However there is a view this damage may not be permanent in some instances and may just be temporary damage that the body will repair. This is concerning of course and I am certainly not saying healthy people under 60, should have a carefree attitude toward the virus. Social distancing, washing hands, wearing masks and proper hygiene, are all very important measures that should be encouraged. Everyone should take precautions, because the virus is dangerous. However, it is a reality that the degree of danger is heavily skewed towards the elderly and those with certain health conditions. They are the majority of people filling our hospital beds and dying from the virus.
It is also a reality that going to the extent of locking down society for more than a few months and/or having multiple mass lockdowns, is also dangerous to public health. Protracted or repeated lockdowns do cost lives. This is about managing risks and consequences and making hard decisions. In the short-term with many unknowns, it could be argued that a lockdown was justifiable, so that we had time to prepare and also evaluate the threat of the virus. In the long-term a protracted lockdown or repeated lockdowns becomes less and less tenable as a strategy, because of the increasing cost to human lives and public health from the lockdown itself. There is a threshold where lockdown measures cost more lives and have a greater negative impact on public health than the actual virus and other risk mitigation strategies have to be considered instead. This is what people with a reductionist mindset swimming in fear of the virus cannot perceive, because they can only focus on the danger of the virus and the deaths directly from the virus. A perpetual lockdown is not a tenable long term option and sooner or later it has to end.
If people want to criticise my opinion on COVID-19 I am perfectly fine with that, as long as such criticism is well thought through. Please consider the facts before you form judgements on an issue that will determine the very social and economic future of our countries for the next 20-30 years. That is how big of a footprint the lockdowns will leave on society. I would also encourage people to watch these discussions with Nobel Laureate Prof. Michael Levitt3, distinguished physician Dr. Scott Atlas4 and former UK Supreme Court Justice Lord Sumption5, before they reactively form a view from listening to our mainstream media, that locking all of society down (sometimes on multiple occasions) for a protracted and often uncertain period of time, is the only way to react to this virus.
Also ask yourself these questions- How many times can we keep locking society down with every new wave of the virus, before we no longer have the economy and the money to support our health systems beyond 2020? What resources will we have available for the next pandemic or for future waves of this virus, if we destroy our economies? How many lives will be lost from suicide, addictions/overdoses, intimate partner violence, stress induced heart disease and cancer and from failing to seek medical care to diagnose and treat other life threatening conditions (Other than COVID-19, like preventing the diagnosis of cancer or heart disease at an early stage) etcetera from the lockdowns? How much is overall health and life expectancy going to be reduced from livelihoods being destroyed because of the lockdowns? These lockdowns are not harmless to public health. There are costly limits to the effectiveness of locking society down over a protracted period of time or doing so repeatedly.
It takes a certain level of responsibility, a strong intellect, moral discipline, emotional toughness and resilience, to ensure the continuation of our modern civilisation. Frankly I see very little of any of these attributes reflected in our leaders or from the general population at the moment. Past generations built society by putting reason and accountability before feelings. Our society is not even close to where past generations were in this regard. It may seem cold, but being overly emotional on important issues like a pandemic is dangerous and can be more dangerous than the actual virus itself. You don’t get all of the technological and social progress we have experienced in the West over the last 300 years by letting feelings and the mob dictate society. We could learn something from that. What did Franklin Roosevelt say during the Great Depression? “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”6. When I look at society today, it is consumed with fear and our leaders and mainstream media are stoking and playing to that fear. That is the difference between past society and the society of today.
What we are living through is a challenge to the age of reason and modern civilisation itself. We are living through a crucial moment in history. This year and this decade are inflection points that will set the course of the rest of this century. Facts have to come before emotion. Bad ideas that are proven to be factually incorrect need to be dismissed, regardless as to how emotionally appealing they may be. People need to think for themselves instead of robotically following the herd or authority. People need to consider information, ideas and opinions more deeply before they just absorb them, think long term and take in the bigger picture beyond the reductive lens of ideology. People need to value individuality above group identity, because individuality is the ultimate form of diversity. We need to hold people that promote bad ideas accountable for the consequences of their ideas. At the moment we are doing the complete opposite of every single one of these things and rest assured it will have enormous consequences on society.
When we cannot have nuanced discussions on complex and difficult issues because society has become too polarised and emotionally charged to discuss them, civilised society is under threat. If winning the argument is determined by who yells the loudest, violently protests and censors the most, then society will eventually implode in the intellectual vacuum such conditions create. When the group identity of a person determines the value of their contribution to society and not what they actually contribute, then society destroys its very capacity to be a society. In these conditions and after enough time, society eventually transitions into a fractured collection of tribal groups. In such a dystopia, the authoritarian mob and group identity rules. Individuality is gone, individual liberty is gone and the rule of law is replaced by the law of the jungle and totalitarianism.
What Is At Stake
Make no mistake, all of our individual liberties are at stake over the next three decades. We are in an information war against ideologues that what to divide the population against itself and keep society weak, dumbed down and in a state of perpetual social and financial dependence for their own gain and for their own power. These elitist ideologues are in our media, they are in our universities, they are in our legal systems and they are in our politics and boardrooms. They will use societies blind faith in authority, herd mentality, tribalism, surface thinking, short-term thinking, reductionism and emotional thinking and their lack of accountability they enjoy, to manipulate society for their own benefit and at our expense.
Notice when black is turned against white and women are turned against men, society is never uniting to challenge the societal status quo that leaves people weaker and poorer every year? That is not an accident. It is the strategy of divide and rule. This is not a conspiracy, it is an open secret and being done right in our faces. The media and academia are leading the way on a sustained campaign of psychological warfare against society. There is a reason the establishment funds and supports divisive political ideology- It keeps the public too distracted and divided to identify and resist the gradual introduction of a sophisticated system of mass exploitation.
Gynocentrism has gone far beyond any historical level seen in the past, in part because of those eight forces I have mentioned growing in our society over the past five decades and the influence of bad actors in our society fanning the flames. Our institutions and culture need to encourage the very opposites of these eight forces to quash the general madness in our culture and gynocentrism. However that cannot occur without accountability being applied to people promoting bad ideas.
We are quite capable of turning things around as a society and addressing these eight forces, by fostering, encouraging and demonstrating their exact opposites in our culture and in our institutions. We are capable of more than we are currently exhibiting as a society and I think there is an increasing awareness of that and that something is really wrong with the direction we are headed in. All it takes is for the silent majority to decide enough is enough and it all stops. We have subversive ideologues in positions of power. They have to eventually be held accountable by the public and I think the public is running out of patience with what is happening to society. You can see in it the public reactions to various issues as each year passes. People are reaching a tipping point, where they won’t keep buying into what they have been told for years. The next step is to actually demand something be done and without compromise.
Some Room For Hope
We have the rule of law, for the very reason that we recognise that the concept of justice is above the emotion of a mob. We are emotional beings, but that does not mean we have to be slaves to our emotions. We have been rational enough to form governments, administer and enforce laws and adopt science over superstition. We are animals, but that does not mean we have to be slaves to our animal impulses. We have a choice to behave as better people and we have strived in the past to become those better people and a better society. That is what drove the enlightenment and the industrial revolution. The realisation of what society could become is a powerful motivator to improve.
So much positive social change has been preceded by a hunger to move beyond our more primitive ways. We have made some progress there. Just because we still have violence, bigotry and cruelty in society, does not mean we have not improved over the thousands of years of civilisation. We are less cruel, less bigoted and less violent than in the past. There is more justice and fairness than in the past. No matter how much ideologues would convince us otherwise, we have made social progress and continue to do so. I would encourage people to read Stephen Pinker’s two books on the subject, Enlightenment Now7 and The Better Angels Of Our Nature8 which discusses this further. Are we perfect? No. Have we improved in all areas? No. Can we still improve? Yes, we have demonstrated that over thousands of years as a civilisation and as a species.
If humanity can come as far as it has in the last ten thousand years from huts to space stations, then clearly we can live beyond pure instinct and emotion and continue to improve. If we can do these things, then we can overcome the madness that has currently gripped society. I think we can do a better job in the future than we have done in the last fifty years, but only if we recognise where we have gone wrong. It is true that civilisations have risen and fallen, but with each iteration of civilisation, humanity has become more civilised, more advanced and more adherent to reason. We have the capacity to learn from the past and slowly with each cycle of civilisation, we are moving further away from our primitive behaviour and toward a higher state of being. There has been an undeniable upward trend in the advancement of civilisation.
There is no reason to think we have to wait until the current civilisation collapses before we can move to the next level of civilisation9. We can work on addressing the madness now and moving beyond it. We can start taking notes right now on what is going on, formulating a plan and building our future. We can either look toward the future, plan for it and take control of our own destiny, or we can let fear, tyrants and ideologues set our future for us. We need to have the courage to call the bad actors out, address our vices and support each other when we do.
We often talk about men’s duties and responsibilities, or their failures to man-up and adequately serve women and society. But we rarely talk about men’s needs, nor encourage them to carve out some self-actualized living.
Abraham Maslow’s model of human needs is depicted as a series of hierarchical levels on a pyramid. At the base are what he calls the deficiency needs (D-needs) which must be fulfilled before moving up to enjoy the higher needs. Any absence in deficiency needs, such as social belonging or having enough to eat, creates a sense of deprivation that motivates people to seek satisfaction of those needs.
D-needs are comprised of the lower four of the following levels of need: Physiological, safety, belonging, and self-esteem.
The guiding principle in this model is that each base-need must be satisfied before moving onto the next level of need motivation, culminating finally in the pursuit of personal ‘self-actualization,’ a flowering of human potential inviting more free-time and the luxury of not being preoccupied with constantly servicing base needs for ourselves and others.
Sadly, catering to the deficiency needs of everyone around them is precisely what most men find themselves doing. Men collectively spend most of their waking hours servicing the base needs of others, particularly female others who are freed to pursue the more luxurious need goals related to self-actualization.
Think of the so called ‘housewife’ or ‘home maker,’ or of women who make the sensible choice of working part time so their work-life balance is not deleterious to their aspirations for self-actualisation.
Meanwhile, we often fail to ask who is labouring away at servicing the base needs of society; who is growing the most meat and vegetables to cater to human need; who is transporting the food; who is working longer hours to earn the bigger weekly wage to pay for all the foodstuffs that mostly others will eat? Who is building the houses and infrastructure for people to luxuriate within; Which sex is putting themselves on the line to ensure the safety of others? And which sex is pandering to women’s relationship ideals – including the funding of regular holiday packages, latte and shopping money, and big helpings of benevolent sexism to ensure the ‘esteem needs’ of women are fully met?
You guessed it – they are the base needs servicing army.
Alternatively, and on a more personal level, which sex suffers most homelessness, street violence, workplace injuries, health deprivation, safety deprivation, love/belonging deprivation, depression, suicide or early death? Clearly men are not very good at servicing their own base needs – perhaps because they are so preoccupied serving those of others.
Analysed honestly, a picture emerges of men preoccupied their whole lives with catering to base needs of women and children, and in many cases neglecting those very same needs in themselves. And too often women appear reluctant to fill the breach – perhaps because they are preoccupied with enjoying their own creative pursuits of self-actualization.
Maslow conceptualized his model as a universal path regardless of one’s gender, a human path not requiring sharp distinctions between the big-picture needs of men or women respectively. This however appears far from the reality when we consider that his pyramid today has been carved into distinctly gendered turf, with men relegated to servicing the bottom need-rungs for women (especially physiological and safety needs), or indirectly servicing them via paying taxes to a government who services those same needs, thus allowing women to devote energy to the creative pursuits of romantic love, belonging, self-esteem, and of course the cherry on the top – self-actualization.
Not only do men take care of most physical needs and safety issues, they feel compelled to provide support for whatever higher-need whims their female partners inevitably dream up — “I just do whatever she wants so she can be happy”.
Betty Friedan, champion of the women’s liberation movement and instigator of second-wave feminism called for self-actualization for all women, writing “Only by such a personal commitment to the future can American women break out of the housewife trap and truly find fulfillment… by fulfilling their own unique possibilities as separate human beings.”1
Friedan cited Maslow’s higher-order description of ‘self-actualization’ as essential for women to achieve this aim – and achieve it they have, in spades.
To-date we are still waiting for the cry to go out for male self-actualization.
To a large extent men, being perpetually stuck catering to bottom order needs is a hangover of human survival roles in which men and women divided labours between themselves in order to ensure survival of the family unit and, with it, the species. Having realized that survival, and living now in societies with far less disease, danger, and with greater material abundance, women have collectively seen fit to “liberate” themselves from traditional roles while men, generally speaking, have not. This is what we call the blue-pill conundrum — one sex is living the liberated dream, while the other remains stuck in a traditional service role.
The idea of men reaching for higher order needs is among the hottest of men’s rights questions arising today: i.e. should we remain welded to our traditional roles of protector and provider and hope that “liberated” women will disavow their multi-option lives and come join us in the trenches? Or do we join them and insist that neither sex should be responsible for the base needs of the other while simultaneously neglecting their own safety and higher fulfillment?
I think the question is self-answering.
Men and boys might now pause to consider they have the option to focus on their own base needs as much as anyone else’s. We also have the option to pursue Maslow’s higher-order needs of self-actualization, described as, “the desire for self-fulfilment, namely the tendency for him to become actualized in what he is potentially. This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming.”2
Self-actualization is further defined by Dictionary.com as “the achievement of one’s full potential through creativity, independence, spontaneity, and a grasp of the real world.” It entails nothing less than the realization of one’s creative, aesthetic, intellectual, and social potential, but it can only come about by the commitment of the self-determined, red pill man to live a life of freedom. He is the one who opts for being over and above selfless sacrifice and catering to survival needs alone. He is the one builds, dreams, cooks, rides a Harley, has hobbies, visits friends, goes on an adventure.
If we accept that there are no victims in life, only volunteers, that means there is literally nothing standing in the way of a more a fulfilling, self-actualized existence. The choice as always is ours.
Another concept presented by Maslow’s is peak experiences –those moments of intense happiness that stand apart from usual mundane experience, something he suggested was more likely to occur with regularity for the self-actualized person.
According to Maslow, feelings accompanying peak experiences included “wonder, awe, reverence, humility, surrender, and even worship before the greatness of the experience.” And he added that reality is perceived with a sense of “truth, goodness, beauty, wholeness, aliveness, uniqueness, perfection, completion, justice, simplicity, richness, effortlessness, playfulness, self-sufficiency” 3
Those humans lucky enough to enjoy the self-actualized life, punctuated as it is with peak experiences, would seem to live a privileged existence.
The following Wikipedia list offers some typical characteristics of peak experiences — experiences which in many ways are comparable to the freedoms described under red pill living:
- loss of judgment to time and space
- the feeling of being one whole and harmonious self, free of dissociation or inner conflict
- the feeling of using all capacities and capabilities at their highest potential, or being “fully functioning”
- functioning effortlessly and easily without strain or struggle
- feeling completely responsible for perceptions and behavior. Use of self-determination to becoming stronger, more single-minded, and fully volitional
- being without inhibition, fear, doubt, and self-criticism
- spontaneity, expressiveness, and naturally flowing behavior that is not constrained by conformity
- a free mind that is flexible and open to creative thoughts and ideas
- complete mindfulness of the present moment without influence of past or expected future experiences
- a physical feeling of warmth, along with a sensation of pleasant vibrations emanating from the heart area outward into the limbs.
Every detail of that list has been described by men who have swallowed the red pill and decided to live life on their own terms.
When men are no longer preoccupied in servicing the needs of Betty Friedan’s liberated women, no longer preoccupied by honey-do lists, the long work hours and the burden of social guilt that accompanies the role of servicing (and ultimately failing) women’s expectations, they can then begin to pursue their own needs as self-actualized men.
Those men who have swallowed the red pill report a new experience of freedom, one that comes with transcendence of temporal time and space as men become less chained to the clock and its plantation-like schedules. There’s far less ‘dissociation or inner conflict’ as blue-pill cognitive dissonance becomes a thing of the past, and self-actualization becomes second nature.
Feminists since Betty Freidan have succeeded in managing all levels of Maslow’s ladder, from physiological needs upwards, for their own self-benefit. They’ve treated human needs as a gendered turf war, with Maslow’s pyramid divided up like real estate on a Monopoly board where all the good properties are owned by women, while men pay rent on their Mayfair and Park Lane stopovers, or go straight to jail. The time to level the playing field is long overdue.
 Friedan, Betty, The Feminine Mystique (1963)
 Maslow., A. A Theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Review 50, pp. 370-396. (1943)
 Maslow, A.H. (1964). Religions, values, and peak experiences. London: Penguin Books Limited
Eric Anderson is Professor of Sport, Masculinities & Sexualities, University of Winchester.
As scientists and rational human beings we like to think of our ourselves as people swayed by hard evidence. However there is another thread in the human experience, one which can sway us to have “faith” in ideas that go beyond science.
By Paul Elam
Recently, Brad Wilcox of PragerU did a video trying to sell the idea that a man is better off yoked to a woman he has to take care of versus life as a bachelor pursuing his own interests and leisure activities.
The reaction from the group of men who identify as Men Going Their Own Way, or MGTOW, was swift, critical and on point.
Now, you might think that the divide between MGTOW and pro-marriage advocates is a relatively new one, born in the internet by a collection of men who made a choice to rebel against the institution of marriage and opened a real-time, public dialogue about it.
In modern times we can trace the kerfuffle back to the early 2000’s, when a group of Men’s Rights Activists created the first internet forum dedicated to men going their own way. An archived conversation with one of the founders was recorded by Rocking Mr. E.
Part of the problem those men encountered was also, in their minds, the solution. Men of this type were fiercely independent. Or, more bluntly put, MGTOW tend not to play well with others. Rather than cooperate with each other, they often went their own way.
That is not a criticism. Quite the contrary, it was MGTOW steadfastness and out-of-the-box thinking that led them to re-popularize the idea of men checking out and taking care of themselves.
Their ideas were subject to quick evolution. For instance, early in the first known internet version of a MGTOW manifesto, they claim to hold the objective of, and I quote, “instilling masculinity in men,” a clear “man up” mandate that would most likely be scoffed at by contemporary men going their own way.
Thus, as far as we know, is when the modern use of the term emerged. Many have assumed that this is a first for western culture, and have even struggled to claim ownership over what “going your own way” means.
There has been a fair amount of infighting over that, from which I have not been exempt. Yet, if we look at history we find that the bickering is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog. The idea of men going their own way is bigger and older than anyone talking about it today.
There is a record of men avoiding marriage — the dictates of gynocentrism, and the attempts by those who would shame men from that path that stretches back nearly into antiquity.
One good source to gather more information on this is The Age of the Bachelor: Creating an American Subculture by Howard P. Chudacoff, a 1999 book that chronicles a good bit of the history of misogamy and debunks completely the idea that it is a new phenomenon.
The following excerpt from the volume Medieval Forms of Argument provides more detail about the tradition of men rejecting marriage:
In Germany this aspect of the querelle has been largely ignored (interest has focused on voices which argued in favor of women’s intelligence and reason), although the querelle du mariage played an important role here: the wide-ranging marriage debate during the Reformation, in particular in its sensational and scandalous early phases – public betrothals of monks and nuns, closures of monasteries and convents, an epidemic of marriages in Germany to which even French reformers travelled who wished to marry – must be read as an integral part of the European querelle des sexes and the same goes for the marriage debates of the Counter-Reformation. Martin Luther’s Von chelichen Leben (The Estate of Married Life – 1522) speaks quite in the manner of a querelle text by turning against the traditional misogamist attitude:
“What we would speak most of is the fact that the estate of marriage has universally fallen into such awful disrepute. There are many pagan books which treat of nothing but the depravity of womankind and the unhappiness of the estate of marriage […]. So they [young men listening to the advice of a Roman official] concluded that woman is a necessary evil, and that no household can be without such an evil. […] For this reason young men should be on their guard when they read pagan books and hear the common complaints about marriage, lest they inhale poison . For the estate of marriage does not sell well with the devil, because it is God’s good will and work. This is why the devil has contrived to have so much shouted and written in the world against the institution of marriage […]. The world says of marriage, ‘Brief is the joy, lasting the bitterness.”
Looking back as recently as 1950 we have evidence of the shaming backlash against men who reject marriage and gynocentrism in the form of a book, “Why Are You Single?” a collection of essays compiled by Hilda Holland.
The thrust of the text throws a shadow on the mental and emotional fitness of confirmed bachelors, raising doubt about the quality of their parents, suggesting unresolved Oedipal issues, a lack of maturity and insufficient moral bearing. Such characteristics echo what later came to be referred to as Peter Pan Syndrome.
One of the contributors, Dr. Bernard Glueck, wrote that bachelorhood represented “primitive and infantile thinking.”
He also characterized bachelors as “impulse ridden,” “excessively narcissistic” and even “sadistic.”
It’s the mid-twentieth century version of Brad Wilcox, only with less finesse and undoubtedly less backlash from a population of men more tolerant of being shamed.
Reaching back a bit further in time, to 1896, Ernest Belfort Bax neatly summarized the obvious driving force behind the resistance. In his essay titled “The Matrimonial Privileges of Women,” Bax outlines 12 key areas that put men at unjust, egregious disadvantage, vulnerable to fraud, deception, violence and incarceration at the hands of wives.
Also, in the same year, according to Peter Wright of gynocentrism.com, “Mrs. Charlotte Smith, feminist activist and President of the Women’s Rescue League, spearheaded an anti-bachelor campaign based on her concerns about the increasing numbers of women who could not find husbands — a surprising development considering men outnumbered women in the United States then by 1.5 million. Her solution to the “problem” was to denigrate, malign, and ultimately punish bachelors in order to pressure them into marrying any women unlucky enough to remain unwed.
Part of her remedy was to have bachelors excluded from employment in prominent public sector positions. Her second punishment proposed a universal bachelor tax of $10 per year be applied, amounting to between 1-4 weeks of the average wage, with the proceeds to provide living standards for ‘unmarried maidens’ orphans and the poor.”
It seems Mr. Wilcox is standing on a lot of shoulders, and it does not stop there.
In 1707 a conversation about a bachelor tax between two young women was published. Eliza kicks off her conversation with Mariana with the following:
Amongst all the female grievances we have hitherto debated there still remains one we have not yet touch’d upon. There are an abundance of bachelors who, thro’ a cowardly apprehension of the cares and troubles of the marry’d state, are so fearful of entering into it, that they would rather run the hazard of damning their souls with the repeated sin of fornication, than they will honestly engage in Wedlock to procreate within those reasonable bounds which the united laws of both God and man have both religiously appointed: Therefore methinks it would well become the care of a Parliament to redress this grievance, so very hurtful to the Kingdom in general, as well as to our sex in particular, by some compulsory law that should enforce Marriage upon all single sinners who otherwise will never keep a cow of their own whilst a quart of milk is to be brought for a penny.”
The full conversation goes on to ensure that even celibate men are granted no reprieve. The two women imagine all sorts of evils befalling society from the minority of men who eschew married life as well as sexual relations.
In this we get a glimpse of the true source of hostility toward gay men. The hatred is not a fear of them, but a resent of their freedom and their lack of utility to women.
To Eliza and Mariana, as it is to the Bradford Wilcox’s of today, men must marry, and they must do so within the confines of the law and the church. If they refuse, they are inferior, defective threats to society. They are to be punished and burdened for their refusal to indulge gynocentric culture.
Yet still, men resisted.
In 1898, two years after Charlotte Smith started advocacy to shame and punish men who refused to marry, a group was formed by the name, “Anti-Bardell Bachelor Band.” Their mandate was clear.
As was reported in the New York World, then one of New York City’s two top newspapers, ‘The motto of the club is Solomon’s proverb: “It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than with a brawling woman in a wide house.” The objects of the club are to oppose matrimony, to fight for the liberty of man, to encourage the manufacture of all such devices as bachelor buttons and to check the movement inaugurated by Mrs. Charlotte Smith “and other disgruntled females” to require bachelors to wed.’
In one declaration, it is a statement supportive of both men’s rights and men going their own way.
Eventually, of course, these voices of dissent on behalf of men would be pushed out of the mainstream media and shunned, as the media became more and more feminized. We can see the eventual result of that now plastered across the pages of most mainstream publications and places like PragerU, mocking and demonizing MGTOW and the MHRM, generally speaking.
The point of this is to make clear that misogamy, which covers the lion’s share of MGTOW, isn’t new. And MGTOW itself, has risen and fallen throughout the ages under many different names.
Even literal reference to the subject predates all of us with a feminist writing about and somewhat encouraging men to go their own way in 1897.
The difference now, and actually the only difference, is the internet. With the new technology, silencing men who reject the slavish dictates of legally sanctioned marriage is no longer possible. As an instrument of support and education, the World Wide Web now affords the opportunity to reject marriage, and to reject the inevitable shaming by feminists and gynocentrists like Brad Wilcox.
Marching to your own drum still comes with a price, but the internet has made it affordable. That isn’t good for marriage as it stands. Since white feathers and the empty allegation of being less than manly no longer work, the only solution left will be what has heretofore been unspeakable.
If society wants to encourage young men to marry, it will require an overhaul of the law and an overhaul of the female psyche. Biased laws have to go. The outrageous privilege and entitlement of women have to go.
It is hard to tell which will be harder. The legal change or the social change. Both are daunting. Most MGTOW won’t care to worry about it, though. They will be too busy living their lives. They have already gotten the message, even if most don’t know how old that message is.
We’ve taken it back 900 years to the work of Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughter Marie de Champagne, who commissioned many a troubadour to spread propaganda glorifying male sacrifice for the sake of women.
But even then there was a chink in the armor. In their seminal commissioned work, The Art of Courtly Love, by Andreas Capellanus, he makes a surprise conclusion after penning chapters on the noble dictates of romantic chivalry.
He says, and I quote: “Therefore if you will examine carefully all the things that go to make up love, you will see clearly that there are conclusive reasons why a man is bound to avoid it with all his might and to trample under foot all its rules.”
One has to wonder if the courtly Marie ever read the whole work, and Capellanus may count himself lucky if she did not read the above addenda to the work – she might have had him beheaded.
Incidentally, the tendency to claim absolute ownership of the meaning of bachelorhood is also nothing new. Over a hundred years ago, in The Bachelor Book, a magazine dedicated to confirmed bachelors, we read the following:
Bachelorhood is surely one of the fine arts. No man becomes a bachelor other than by selection. A mere failure to connect on the matrimonial timetable does not constitute a bachelor! By no means. As well you might call a man a Frenchman who missed his steamer, thereby finding himself in France.”
Today, many MGTOW will tell you that they had it backwards, that all it takes to be MGTOW, or a “real” bachelor if you will, is to miss that steamer. Perhaps there would even be a war of words between Bachelor Book subscribers and some modern MGTOW.
If there were, though, it would hardly matter. With time, and with embracing an understanding of our shared history, a larger revolution is unavoidable.
What constitutes a real bachelor or a real MGTOW? I am not going to pretend to know. I am just thankful that the age of shame is over for any man who chooses, and that the advocates of male subservience to hypergamy and gynocentrism no longer have the pulpit to themselves.
They can kiss those days goodbye, forever. We know this as we see them on the receiving end of some of the shame they are dishing out.
According to a recent poll only 18% of U.S. people consider themselves feminist.1 On that account we can expect readers of romance novels to comprise not more than 18% feminists, and likely far less due to the fact that feminists disparage traditional approaches to romance…. at least according to their rhetoric.
A more generous National Geographic/Ipsos survey2 of more than 1,000 American women found that 29% of respondents identified as feminists. From the study its worth noting, as an aside, the political spread among feminist women, with Republicans scoring low in feminist self-identification, Democrats scoring high, and Independents somewhere in the middle:
In line with these surveys, we can assume that women who identify as feminist represent less than one third of all women in the USA. With this fact in mind, imagine my surprise when I recently discovered that a whopping 60% of readers of romance novels are feminist, which means that almost two thirds of romantic love enthusiasts are…. feminists! This finding is from a survey of 800 people, which discovered the following details about the average romance reader:3
Author of the survey summarised the question and answers in the following way:
“In the survey of romance readers, I asked if one identified as feminist, believed in equality but wouldn’t use the term feminist – or, not at all. 61% of respondents replied in the affirmative to the first option. While many commentators expressed their ire at the believe-in-equality-but-wouldn’t-use-the-term-feminist option, 35% selected this. Just 3% said not at all (“The third option makes me cry,” one self declared feminist wrote).
The more I read from both sides, the more I realized that we’re more alike than we let on. Whether you call it chivalry or manners, we all want someone to open the door for us.”3
Her last sentence proposes a rationale of (the high number of) feminist readers of romance novels: that they still want doors opened for them, whether actual doors, or doors into better jobs, boardrooms and other kinds of feminist power that are gifted to them by the actions of chivalric men. This point about feminist rationale was confirmed in a study by Gul & Kupfer4 which discovered that feminists felt the positive sides of benevolent sexism outweighed the negatives even if they believed it was somewhat patronising.
Many feminists believe that romantic love is a subversive trope, a positive one that works to increase the power of women relative to men. Elizabeth Reid Boyd, of the School of Psychology and Social Science at Edith Cowan University, and Director of the Centre for Research for Women in Western Australia with more than a decade as a feminist researcher and teacher of women’s studies, tells:
“I muse upon arguments that romance is a form of feminism. Going back to its history in the Middle Ages and its invention by noblewomen who created the notion of courtly love, examining its contemporary popular explosion and the concurrent rise of popular romance studies in the academy that has emerged in the wake of women’s studies, and positing an empowering female future for the genre, I propose that reading and writing romantic fiction is not only personal escapism, but also political activism.
Romance has a feminist past that belies its ostensible frivolity. Romance, as most true romantics know, began in medieval times. The word originally referred to the language romanz, linked to the French, Italian and Spanish languages in which love stories, songs and ballads were written. Stories, poems and songs written in this language were called romances to separate them from more serious literature – a distinction we still have today. Romances were popular and fashionable. Love songs and stories, like those of Lancelot and Guinevere, Tristan and Isolde, were soon on the lips of troubadours and minstrels all over Europe. Romance spread rapidly. It has been called the first form of feminism (Putnam 1970).4
Readers of my writings are familiar with the idea that romantic love and feminism constitute a seamless tradition of gynocentrism that first began in the royal courts of Europe.5 There have occurred transformations in the campaign strategies of feminists throughout the ensuing centuries, but the primary impulse remains consistent through each new generation of feminist activity: to increase the power of women via the institution of a ‘sexual feudalism’ – ie. the proposition that men should act as a quasi serving-class for women.
The following examples of romantic love in Victorian literature are excerpted from the book Male Masochism by Carol Siegal 6. Notice the thematic continuity of this literature with the earlier sexual-relations contract first invented in Medieval Europe:
“A great deal of what [Victorian] women’s literary works had to say about gender relations may have been as disquieting as feminist political manifestos, and ironically so, in that the novels seem most anti-male in the very places where they most affirm a traditionally male vision of love. While women’s lyric poetry tended to reverse the conventional gender roles in love by representing the female speaker as the lover instead of the object of love, women’s fiction most frequently reproduced the images, so common in prior texts by men, of the self-abasing male lover and his exacting mistress.
For example, in Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff declares himself Cathy’s slave; in Jane Eyre, Rochester’s desire for Jane is first inspired and then intensified by his physically dependent position; in Middlemarch, Will Ladislaw silently vows that Dorothea will always have him as her slave, his only claim to her love lies in how much he has suffered for her. In several Victorian novels by women, men must undergo quasi-ritualized humiliation or punishment before being judged deserving of their lady’s attention. For instance, in Olive Schreiner’s Story of an African Farm, the fair Lyndall condescends to treat her admirers tenderly after one has been horsewhipped and the other has dressed himself in women’s clothes to wait on her. Although Victorian women’s novels do explore the emotional insecurities of the heroines, their apparent self-possession is also stressed, in marked contrast to their lovers’ displays of agony, desperation, and wounds.”
The author goes on to say that male masochism and the dominatrix-like behavior of women in much literature is continuous with courtly love literature from the Middle Ages. And whilst some men self-consciously chose their lowly position in relation to women, the men described in Victorian women’s novels lacked such volition and were helplessly controlled by the power of love and beauty:
“These texts also insist that the true measure of male love is lack of volition. While the heroines make choices that define them morally, the heroes are helplessly compelled by love, and not judged to love unless they are helpless. In this respect Victorian women’s fiction recovers the ethos so often expressed in medieval courtly romance that love must be “suffered as a destiny to be submitted to and not denied.” It also departs from the conventions of medieval romance in describing the helpless submission to love as an attribute of true manliness, and thus Victorian women’s fiction directly attacks the degeneration of chivalry into the self-conscious and controlled “gallantry” of eighteenth century libertines.”
Just like their forebears, feminists constitute an army of women working to preserve and extend the tradition of elevated womanhood that has been championed over the last millennium, making the feminist project a remarkably traditional enterprise while putting a lie to its claim to be a forward looking, progressive movement.
The only question left to ask is how, exactly, can this tradition be most accurately characterised? Is it a philosophy, an ideology, human nature, or the slow cultural build-up of behaviorist techniques applied to heterosexual relationships? Its probably a little of all these things, but I’m going to follow the European tradition at the root of romantic love, which saw it primarily as a religion complete with its own guiding Goddess. Her name, as spoken in medieval Germany and through the centuries was Frau Minne.
I have published details about this Goddess before, so rather than rewriting the details I invite the reader to visit the article7 and look further into the essential religiosity at the heart of our gynocentric cult. Furthermore, as recently stated by Alison Tieman, divinity has today become associated with every human woman, imparting to her the power of “I am a Goddess” in much the same way as once done to pharaohs or emperors, or divinised mortals, who became God-men in ancient times and received religious devotion due of a God. That is, half the human population has undergone an apotheosis, while the other half stand in awe and service.
The differences between a god-complex arising variously from a psychotic episode, in cases of extreme narcissism, or in a society that has seen fit to elevate an individual/s to God status is perhaps moot. These things more often appear together, in combinations. Whatever the causes, we are safe to conclude that feminism amounts today to a global religion, one as powerful as any that have gone before it, with women collectively representing the Godhead to an enthralled male audience.
 Only 18 percent of Americans consider themselves feminists, Vox 2015
 Less than a third of American women identify as feminists
 Dangerous Books For Girls: The Bad Reputation of Romance Novels Explained.
 Elizabeth Reid Boyd, Romancing Feminism: From Women’s Studies to Women’s Fiction, 2014
 Gul, P., & Kupfer, T. R. (2018). Benevolent Sexism and Mate Preferences: Why Do Women Prefer Benevolent Men Despite Recognizing That They Can Be Undermining?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 0146167218781000.
 Damseling, chivalry and courtly love (part two)
 Male Masochism by Carol Siegal
 ‘Frau Minne’ the Goddess who steals men’s hearts
By Peter Ryan
From Exploitation To Disposability
In our modern world technological and social change has resulted in an enormous increase in misandry. We have transitioned from male exploitation to genuine male disposability. Our decadent, safe and prosperous societies have lost touch with basic fundamental truths required to sustain civilisation, because technology has temporarily buffered and delayed the consequences of doing so. This is why we have clown world. Only a society completely unconcerned with its own future survival, would tolerate the level of insanity and mass stupidity we see in present day society.
Due to these societal changes, men are now indeed viewed as disposable and are dehumanised to the point their right to even have a place in society is being questioned. Our culture is now filled with messages like, “The End Of Men”12, “The Future Is Female”13, “Why Can’t We Hate Men”14 and “The Coronavirus Is Not Killing Men Fast Enough”15. There are a plethora of examples like this over the last fifty years. These messages are not coming from the margins of our society, they are coming from our mainstream media and our political system. We can also see the routine marginalisation of men in the legal system and the abuses of their fundamental rights. In the education system we can see a complete indifference to the learning needs of young men and boys and the long-term economic impact that will have on society. The list goes on. Men are not actually biologically disposable as I have discussed in my previous writings, but men are certainly treated as disposable in this modern society and there is a general level of indifference shown toward them as a result.
There is no concern for how failing to support men and boys will impact on societies future whatsoever. The cognitive connection of looking after men so they can in turn look after society has been lost. Our culture has lost the logic of survival and neglecting men will inevitably result in a socioeconomic collapse of our societies, which Karen Straughan called the Fempocalypse16. As I have discussed in my earlier writings17, men still remain essential to keeping our societies functioning. This is despite all of the social and technological changes that have occurred. In some dimensions we are even more dependent on men today than we have been in the past. However because of the effect that technology and creating massive amounts of debt has had on greatly enhancing the living conditions of society, we have become disconnected from this reality and other realities related to survival.
It is easy to see when you look at history, how the exploitation of men from gynocentrism has led to the emergence of male disposability. Men’s blindness to gynocentrism and the technological and social changes that have occurred over the last three centuries, made it inevitable. If men were not going to challenge their own exploitation from gynocentrism, then the exploitation of men would flourish along the lines of biological sex and it has. The only obstacle that stood in the way of male disposability in the past, was the logic of survival and an understanding of the importance of supporting men so they could support society. Once that logic was lost, any concern for men went with it.
It does not take much for exploitation to transition to disposability, when supporting “human doings” so they can be exploited, ceases to be perceived to be necessary. If society has no concept of men’s humanity and does not regard them as human beings, they become disposable once they cease being perceived to be useful human doings. That is precarious manhood and men’s place in the world is conditional under precarious manhood. As the world has undergone huge changes, men have gradually been losing their place in society and have come under increasing attack and dehumanisation as a result. Of course men are more than human doings, but gynocentrism unlike other forms of exploitation, has never been challenged by men on any substantive societal level and so has been allowed to grow for centuries to become the monster it is today.
The Final Outcome Of Disposability
The eventual outcome of treating a group of people as disposable is genocide. This is what Adam Kostakis wrote about18 in his series on gynocentrism, when he talked about the eventual outcome of feminism. People might dismiss the idea of men being eliminated as they are the “physically stronger sex”. As we can see from war, all it takes is for men to be turned against each other to make androcide possible. When rampant gynocentrism reaches a level where our own institutions regard the majority of men as a threat and a minority of men in authority in a feminist controlled state are given the “honour” of being the “good men” fighting the oppressive force of the “patriarchy”, then those men will do the killing for their female betters.
That might sound brutal and unbelievable and that is understandable, but look at history. Many Jewish people had the same level of disbelief initially before they were sent to the death camps. What Jew would have thought that his entire family would be exterminated only a decade after Hitler came to power? These atrocities happen because good people in society are asleep at the wheel during critical moments in history and remain in a state of disbelief. Yes people really are that insane when insanity is not challenged and yes androcide can happen and it can happen on an industrial scale.
Setting men against each other is gynocentric female proxy violence 101. Now imagine that on a societal scale with the full support and enforcement of our institutions. That’s the eventual outcome of rampant gynocentrism- A society that regards men as subhumans that have to be eradicated and a handful of chosen men are considered to be reformed and “good men” that do all the dirty work for their feminist masters. These are the male feminists and the white knights. The ones that think that killing men in the name of protecting women makes them brave and honourable.
Do I think all male feminists are like that? No. But at the extreme end of any movement you will find people with extreme views and as we have seen, feminism has no immune response to extremists in their ranks. With every year the feminist movement becomes more and more radical and more and more dangerous. We know the genocidal leanings of radical feminism, because they have written about it in their writings. They are not a fringe element of feminism any longer. People may regard such men and women as insane and yet this is insanity has found its way and continues to find its way into positions of power in our institutions and governments.
Can we stop this? Yes we can, but it is going to take a major shift in the way men see themselves and the way society regards men. Perhaps when society truly discovers the dark evil radical feminism presents and looks back at history, there will be a recognition that change in how we regard men is needed. Men need to be taught to reframe their sense of self-worth along lines of intrinsic value and on that of a human being and not a human doing. Men need to be raised to see the duality of power that exists between the sexes and the power women have in relation to men. Men need to be raised to identify the exploitive nature of chivalry. Only if this social programming is overcome, will men be in a position to challenge gynocentrism. When the mask is lifted and men have an empowered sense of internally derived self-worth and men see the gynocentric dynamic between men and women for what it is, then the days of gynocentrism are numbered.
Men going their own way (MGTOW) is all about men finding their own intrinsic sense of self-worth and going in their own direction in life. MGTOW and red pill knowledge is a significant part of the solution to overcoming gynocentrism. Men that go their own way and have an awareness of the exploitative gynocentric landscape of modern society, are in a prime position to challenge gynocentrism.
Feminism is fascism in a dress and the sooner men recognise the threat it presents and the cultural pathology of gynocentrism it emerged from, the better. Keeping men divided and against each other with gynocentric threat narratives19, is a huge part of gynocentrism and what prevents men from challenging it. For decades we have had a feminist threat narrative that men have oppressed women for thousands of years. There are many other feminist threat narratives, such as the feminist account of domestic violence as an expression of men’s patriarchal tyranny and the feminist rape culture narrative. All of these threat narratives are seeds of hate to justify the demonisation and dehumanisation of men. They have been sown in our society over many decades by feminists. As a result of this, our academic institutions, media, legal system and political systems are now predictably full of contempt for men (particularly academia). At the same time this has occurred, there has been a creeping trend toward authoritarianism, selective censorship and infringements of our civil liberties in so-called Western democracies. Feminism and an emerging authoritarian police state are a perfect marriage of evil cloaked in the supposed feminine innocence that our gynocentric culture glorifies. Feminism is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or as I prefer to call it- Feminism is fascism in a dress.
The enforcement of gynocentrism, requires men to see themselves as the good guy slaying the evil men and protecting the women (or the damsels in distress). All of the threat narratives from feminism, tap into the psychological dynamic in men to see themselves as the protector and provider of women. All of these feminist threat narratives demand that men redeem themselves by demonstrating a hatred for their own sex. That’s how the seeds for mass androcide are sown. All a feminist police state has to do in such a social environment saturated with these threat narratives over many past decades, is to convince the “good men” in authority to view the men that challenge feminism as a threat. From there feminists can then reframe the rest of men in society as a threat and as an example of toxic masculinity that must be eradicated for the survival of humanity. The “good men” in authority will then do the violent and androcidal bidding of feminists on their behalf. After that, then any “good man” that is not ideologically pure enough for the feminist authorities becomes the new threat to be eradicated and so the mass murder goes on and on from there.
For people that doubt this could happen, look at how easy it is to get other men to vilify and condemn other men for being white or black, with all the threat narratives targeted at white men or black men over the decades and centuries. Look at how divided men are because of far-left ideology and identity politics. Consider how dangerous it is for men in particular, to divide men against each other by race. Feminism has been right up there promoting racial identity politics with the far-left for decades. There are too many sick radical feminist ideas to cite and too many examples of extreme feminist ideology such as toxic masculinity20 being taken up by our institutions, for the real possibility of androcide to be dismissed. People in academia have even written about selectively aborting male fetuses and using genetic engineering to control and subjugate men. It is sick and yet this is coming from people in academia. These people have influence and are not on the fringes of our society. So yes, it is indeed possible for society to head down a very dark road when it comes to the future treatment of men and boys in society.
Remember the men from the Christmas Truce in World War One I wrote about at the start of this article? These were men that despite all of the propaganda, recognised they had more in common with each other than they had with the people that had sent them there to fight and die. Men need to overcome the gynocentric forces dividing them and come together to overcome gynocentrism. It is possible that men can do this. Even during war, men from opposing armies have come together under extraordinary circumstances. If men can come together in war, they can come together to fight gynocentrism. However it will require patience, a lot of effort on the part of men and an unconditional regard for the well-being of our fellow men regardless of race or ideology etcetera (whether they are black or white, or a male feminist or a men’s rights activist). Men have to overcome the gynocentric lines that divide us and identity politics. Love your enemy, because feminism sure as hell does not love a male feminist. Feminism just regards their male allies as pawns to enforce gynocentrism and feminist ideology on society, nothing more.
Feminists have put an enormous amount of effort into preventing men from gathering together to discuss men’s issues, or gathering together in general into any sort of men’s only group or organisation without female supervision. Feminists know the power of men getting together in groups and discussing men’s issues and how it undermines gynocentrism and their power base. That’s why there is so much effort from feminists21, to censor the manosphere and disrupt men’s conferences and events. As Prof. Janice Fiamengo said22 at a lecture on men’s issues that was disrupted by feminists, “It’s the signature of a totalitarian ideology to attempt to quash dissent”. Feminism is fascism in a dress.
Time for men to wake up and come to together. Time for society to wake up and recognise men as human beings. Gynocentrism will come to an end in some form or another. Gynocentrism can only end in three ways- socioeconomic collapse, androcide or men peacefully rising up against the authoritarian feminist police state that will emerge from decades of rampant unchecked gynocentrism and passively resisting their own exploitation and dehumanisation. Perhaps we may get all three occurring at once. It all comes down to how much men are prepared to defend their own lives and their own future.
By Peter Ryan
Disposability Versus Exploitation
What is disposable? Something is disposable when it has little or no value and can be easily replaced and readily discarded. Disposable cutlery is one example of this. Highly valuable items that cannot be easily replaced or readily discarded, are not something we consider to be disposable. Famous paintings come to mind as one example of what we would not consider to be disposable. I have always had a problem with the concept of male disposability as a generalised description of the state of men’s lives throughout history. People that are truly disposable are exterminated in death camps and dehumanised to the point their very right to exist is challenged. Genocide is what the end result of disposability of a group looks like at a societal level. When society considers a group of people to be disposable, they are disposed of. There is a difference between facing discrimination or being marginalised and actually being considered to be disposable.
Please read this two part article in its entirety before you comment or form opinions about what I am saying. Disposability implies that society considers men to be of little or no value and something to be eradicated. Throughout history it is certainly the case that we have always had some degree of misandry in the culture. I would certainly agree that to some degree male disposability has existed throughout history, however I would not agree it was systemic. The only exception to this would be during war. Opposing armies have certainly regarded each other as a threat to be eliminated and the dehumanisation of men in war has resulted in enormous loss of life and gruesome abuses as a result. We only have to look at prisoner of war camps and the millions of dead bodies on battlefields to attest to male disposability in war.
Male disposability in war dwarfs any other historical example of male disposability by orders of magnitude. However even in war men of opposing armies have demonstrated extraordinary civility with their opposing male counterparts at times. The Christmas truce1 of World War One being one example of this. Men in an unofficial ceasefire instigated by the soldiers themselves, decided to lay down their arms, fraternise with the enemy and celebrate Christmas with each other. It is even suspected there may have been a football match!
To repeat, I am certainly not suggesting male disposability has not occurred in our history or on a large scale in times of war. However I think there has been a mistake in understanding the true nature of the discrimination men have historically faced, versus what they now face today. Like soldiers that do not value the life of their enemy, society does not value the life of people it considers to be disposable. Disposable people are disposed of and it eventually leads to war or alternatively civil unrest, revolution and then genocide. What I think we confuse as historical male disposability in the manosphere, is actually better described as the exploitation of men. Men have historically faced exploitation to a much greater degree than disposability. For as long as civilisation has existed, society has gone to great efforts to control men and exploit male labour. If men truly had no value whatsoever and they truly were regarded as disposable, then our society would be indifferent toward men and would put no effort into controlling and exploiting them, because doing so would yield nothing of value.
There has been an unchallenged narrative in the manosphere for many years that men are biologically disposable because women are the rate limiting factor of reproduction. This reductionist mindset, rests on the flimsy assumption reproduction and how many uteri a population has, is the sole or overwhelming determining factor for the continued existence of communities. This assumption does not consider the vast multitude of other requirements that must also be met to ensure a community’s survival and future existence and the essential role men have played to ensure that those other requirements are met. This reductionist narrative of glorifying the role of women in reproduction, is itself gynocentric and comes from certain dogmatic pockets of the manosphere that are simply repeating a narrative from our gynocentric culture. I have scrutinised it extensively in my writings2, because of how entrenched this narrative has become in the manosphere and because it has remained largely unquestioned for many years. It is keeping the manosphere in a stagnate holding pattern and needs to go.
I think this gynocentric narrative of the golden uterus and male disposability has reality backwards. In reality I think men are not disposable and men actually have tremendous value. In fact, I think men have so much value and society and the aristocracy have been so dependent on that value to survive and build civilisation and expand their empires, that enormous efforts have been put into controlling men and exploiting them. This exploitation has often come at the expense of men themselves and has been used to build and expand empires and nation states for the ruling class. Now before people start muttering “Marxist!”, “Communist!” etc let me be clear- Any civilisation of any kind will have some level of corruption and some level of exploitation.
Human beings are imperfect and the societal systems we create are by extension imperfect. It should be obvious by looking at past and present society, that the assertion that our culture is perfectly aligned with our biology and merely an expression of biology, simply does not have a leg to stand on. Biology does restrict culture, but culture can overshoot biology to a certain degree and aspects of it such as political ideology, can become destructive and maladaptive to evolutionary success. No biological system perfectly constrains culture to maximise evolutionary success. Evolution is not perfect, it is not intelligent design.
I am not suggesting either that human society is best described as being composed of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie that exploits them. Society is a much more complex mixture than that and reality is much more grey than Marxist ideology cares to admit. I am not calling for some communist revolution. History is littered with examples of how badly that turns out. Men have certainly faced exploitation to varying degrees throughout history, but that does not mean that was the entirety of their experience.
There has certainly been some level of disregard for the well-being of men throughout history, because of the desire of the ruling elite to exploit men for their own benefit. However it has not been a complete disregard for men, like what we would see if men were truly regarded as disposable. There was some logical understanding in past society of the need to look after men, so that the value that men can provide can be harnessed and exploited. Men pressed onto ships were given vitamin C, men conscripted into armies were fed, clothed and given shelter and men working in mines were given at least some incentive to work under incredibly dangerous conditions. Even slaves on plantations or that built ancient structures, had to be adequately looked after by their masters to perform the labour they would be involuntarily forced to do. Does this make exploitation acceptable? Of course not. However there is a very dark contrast between a group that is exploited and a group that is considered disposable. It is an important distinction to make when we consider how men may have been treated historically and how men are treated today.
In the past it was known that men had to be supported to some degree and society had to help raise boys so they could perform their role. There used to be a cognitive connection in society of the need to look after men, so they could in turn look after society. Societies that flourished ensured their men were in a good enough condition to perform for society. Societies that treated men as disposable and neglected the health of their men, neglected the foundations of their own civilisation. The armies that took care of their soldiers, had the stronger and fitter men to win the war. The armies that lost the least amount of men, survived to fight and win another battle. This is the simple logic of survival and in our dangerous and volatile past such pragmatic thinking, was essential for the continuation of societies.
This is the logic that our culture has lost because of the technological and debt driven bubble of peace and prosperity we have created over the last three centuries, since the beginning of the industrial revolution. It is a bubble that insulates society from the harsh reality of survival and has led to all sorts of delusional ideologies and belief systems flourishing. This bubble has not eliminated the basic requirements to sustain civilisation, it has merely delayed the time period between the decisions and actions we make today as a society and the future consequences for those actions and decisions. The bubble creates a temporal buffer that allows society to lose perceptual awareness of the connection between action and consequence and reality itself. The consequences will arrive, but when they do it will be the accumulation of consequences from decades of reckless and delusional decision making. That’s the danger. It is a danger that COVID-19 has given us just a little inkling of what to expect, if we keep ignoring basic realities about the nature of the world we live in and the nature of ourselves as a species, as a society and as individuals.
To repeat I am not suggesting men have had it good for centuries. The exploitation of men was a significant trend in historical society, particularly in the lower classes. Society has placed enormous amounts of effort into controlling men and regulating how men perceive themselves and other men. Men are sold a lie from birth that they can only be considered “a man” and have a place in society, if they perform as human doings. This is what drives precarious manhood3. This cultural message is the carrot and the stick that society uses to keep men in line and keep the machinery of male exploitation going.
Be a gentleman, do your duty, be a man and if you don’t do your duty here is a white feather for you! All of this is psychological blackmail to shame men into their own exploitation. Keeping men ignorant of their own intrinsic value as human beings and beating into them from birth that their masculine value is externally derived, is the key mechanism that society depends on to control men. This form of control works so well because human beings are herd animals and we like to conform to the group to belong and form affiliations. Men that don’t toe the line are ostracised from their community. Remember that men are raised in an environment with this social programming and social pressure to conform to “what a man is”, from the earliest years of their life.
Despite all of these social pressures, men have still fought against their own exploitation. The development of our legal system and the concept of people having “rights” have all followed from men rising up against authoritarianism in one form or another and to their own exploitation. Men have fought revolutions and wars over their own exploitation. The past is a mixture of society giving men the bare minimum concern for their well-being and men pushing back and demanding better treatment from society. In some cases society has treated men fairly and in some cases society has treated men poorly. Often it has been men in the lower classes of society that have been treated the worst and the remainder of men have faced a mixture of fair and exploitative treatment. The lower classes of men have been the invisible workers and the invisible homeless of our societies. They are the men the ruling aristocracy have been able to most effectively exploit, because they are the most powerless in our society to do anything about it. They were the ones sent to the mines and to the trenches during war in the millions.
It would be wrong to describe the system exploiting poor men as the feminist “patriarchy”. This is not a system that privileges men because they are men. Men were only given a partial reprieve from exploitation if they were wealthy and even then they were exposed to unfair treatment relative to women of the same class because they were men. A clear example of this can be seen with the Titanic. Even women in third class had a better chance of survival4 than men in first class. In the case of the Titanic we do have a historical incidence of male disposability. When the logic of survival no longer demands that looking after men is conducive to enhancing the survival of a group and men are living in a culture of male exploitation that regards them as human doings and not as human beings, then men predictably will face disposability when society sees no use for them and has a reduced concept of them as human beings.
Historical incidences of male disposability did occur, but outside of war these incidents were exceptional and often noted in our history for the exceptions that they were. Examples like the Titanic do illustrate though, that the discrimination men faced cannot be entirely attributed to class and was at least partly the result of simply being male. The feminist concepts of “male privilege” and “the patriarchy”, simply fly in the face of history. Men were not privileged to die on the Titanic or die in the numerous wars fought over history.
Gynocentrism Is A Sex Based Form Of Exploitation
Aristocratic women have played a key role over the centuries5 in developing and codifying into the culture, a system of male exploitation to serve women at the expense of men. We call it gynocentrism6. Gynocentrism first emerged 900 years ago and it is not surprising it first originated in the aristocracy. As we know power corrupts and the female aristocracy, like their male counterparts, enjoyed considerable power over society. Gynocentrism spread so effectively throughout society, partly because it came from people of influence and also because there was already some form of male exploitation in society (particularly among the vast numbers of poor peasants). It is predictable that even today, the worst forms of gynocentrism are promoted by the upper echelons of society and felt the worst by the lower rungs of society. Of course gynocentrism exists at all levels of society, but the general pattern that is observed is what I have just described.
Men have fought against all forms of exploitation throughout history, but have been relatively silent when it comes to gynocentrism. The reason for this is because men are raised from birth with another big lie- Men have all the power in relation to women and women are powerless in relation to men. This is the myth Dr. Warren Farrell debunked in his masterpiece, The Myth Of Male Power7. Men are agents, women are damsels in distress. That is the narrative feminism rests on and that narrative is ultimately dependent on the myth of male power deeply embedded in our culture.
Feminist ideology depends on maintaining a narrative of female victimhood and male agency. Any mainstream acknowledgement of female power over men and any scrutiny of it, is not permitted in our gynocentric culture. Men don’t want to do hear about it and women don’t want to hear about it (for the most part). Society is uncomfortable confronting the power women have over men and the consequences of that power. Why? Deep down society has a problem holding women responsible for what they do to men. Why? Holding women responsible for what they do to men, would require society to consider men as human beings first and that would undermine the whole societal system of male exploitation.
As I mentioned earlier, men are told a lie from birth that their whole worth is externally derived from how well they perform as a human doing. Men are especially judged and evaluated as well by women on how well they perform as human doings. Women will not date losers or men they perceive to be “weak”. Women don’t generally prefer dating men that earn less than they do, despite all of this mantra about female empowerment. This lie that men are human doings and the social pressure associated with it, demands that men must see themselves as powerful and as agents to protect their own sense of self-worth. Human doings can’t be permitted to be in the vulnerable and powerless position, otherwise their capacity to “do” is questioned. So when you consider these two lies men are told from birth and are socially programmed to follow, we can predict men will be blind to their own exploitation when it comes in the form of gynocentrism. Men will recognise fascism and fight against it, but not feminist fascism in dress.
Men are told from birth by our culture that they have all the power and are told a narrative men have always held the power and are responsible for everything bad that has ever happened. Men are taught to associate power with positions of authority and men see that men do indeed hold all of the positions of authority. So predictably from all of this social programming, men in society form a perception that men have all the power and women are the weaker sex that need to be protected and cared for. Men cannot see themselves in a position of less power in relation to women, because they have not been raised to identify such situations and because their sense of self-worth and finding a partner depends on constantly maintaining a mindset that they are agents with power. Adding to these two dynamics, we then have chivalry playing on men’s desire to perform to earn externally derived worth from women and society. Despite what people may think chivalry is alive and well in the present day and has just taken a different form to what we observed in the past. We identify modern day chivalry in the manosphere as “simping”.
Men do not recognise gynocentrism as a form of exploitation, because men’s sense of self views the exploitive dynamic of gynocentrism as a source of pride rather than a source shame. Men willingly go along with their own gynocentric exploitation because that’s what they think “a man” does. To summarise it is the concept of chivalry, how men’s self-worth is constructed and men’s perception of power, that prevents men from seeing their own gynocentric exploitation. If business partnerships resembled modern marriage, no man would form a business partnership. To paraphrase Dr. Warren Farrell from the Myth of Male Power, men are taught that earning money something else spends while they die sooner is “power”. Men are blind to how they are being exploited, because of the three factors I have identified.
Yes biology is certainly at play and I will have more to say on that in my further writings. However biology alone does not result in gynocentrism. Gynocentrism is just one pathological manifestation of biology, like murder, racism and every other human vice. Culture is not purely an extension of biology, but a product of a continuous feedback loop between the environment and biology. Culture can become corrupted with certain pathological elements and those pathological aspects of our culture can hijack our psychological drives in maladaptive ways. Paul Elam and Peter Wright have both discussed how gynocentrism can grow from superresponses to superstimuli in Chasing The Dragon8 and Slaying the Dragon9. Certain pathological elements can arise in our culture, when certain environmental conditions persist for long periods. These pathological aspects of culture, can short-circuit our base biological drives and gynocentrism is one of them.
Gynocentrism can in a way be considered as a type of “mind virus” or germ, like what evolutionary psychologist Prof. Gad Saad describes in his new book, “The Parasitic Mind”10 and what I discussed in The Normalisation of Gynocentrism11. When men’s perception of power, self-worth and responsibilities in relation to the opposite sex are distorted in the way that they are, men cannot psychologically protect themselves from the cultural pathology of gynocentrism. It is analogous to the immune system failing to recognise a parasitic infection.
Remember that men are conditioned from birth to form a distorted cognitive and perceptual framework around power, self-worth and responsibility when it comes to their interactions with the opposite sex. This social programming has been going on for centuries now, from generation to generation. When you consider the social pressure on men to maintain this blue pill perception, from our institutions, from our culture and from their peers and that this programming is all men are exposed to from birth, it is like coming out of the matrix and just as hard to do.
Like what Morpheus said to Neo about people in the matrix, many men will fight to protect the system that exploits them. Without an identifiable and attractive alternative to forming their own sense of self-worth, many will resist any challenge to their gynocentric programming and even then it is an uphill battle. When men are dependent on gynocentric social programming to maintain their sense of self-worth, they will fight against any challenge to gynocentrism out of psychological self-defence. That’s the hurdle men have to overcome to adopt a red pill perception of the world. That’s why unlike other forms of exploitation, many men fail to challenge gynocentrism and actually fight for it. Men’s sense of self-worth is tied up in gynocentrism, because of those three factors I spoke of earlier and all of the biological buttons they press.
When these factors are combined with a narrative and an image cultivated in our gynocentric culture, that masks female vice and magnifies female virtue at every turn and conversely does the complete opposite in relation to men, we have the recipe for the blind acceptance of the gynocentric exploitation of men. It is the deification of women and the demonisation of men. Women are wonderful, women are powerless but divine, men are human doings and men must act like “men” and be chivalrous and rise above their “animal state”. That is the gynocentric message in our culture. True female power (not feminist female empowerment nonsense) is not only largely unacknowledged in our culture that views women as perpetual victims, even when female power is recognised in society, the image of female innocence cloaks any female abuse directed at men from receiving any significant degree of societal attention and condemnation.
That is the cultural milieu that male exploitation grows in and why it is so hard to combat.
By Doug Mortimer
If you have ever had a mortgage, you know what equity means. You own your house in conjunction with your mortgage company. The relative amount of skin in the game is each party’s equity. It’s not difficult to understand. If you put down 20% on your house and the mortgage company foots the rest of the price, then they have 80% equity in your home. Go ahead and call yourself a homeowner but you’re not. You’re more like a minority stockholder.
Somehow the concept of equity has been perverted in recent years. According to wokenik social theory, if half the population is female, then half the cushy jobs should go to females. This is not equity, it is a quota system. I still remember a half-century or so ago when the concept of affirmative action was broached and its proponents insisted they were not demanding quotas. Heaven forfend!
Well, now it’s come to that. But it’s no longer a bad thing. Now it’s a good thing. Funny how that works out, isn’t it? Is it possible to turn the tables, however? Could men get away with demanding quotas in certain industries in the interest of equity?
A good place to start is an industry that is so oriented towards the female sex it has all but shut out the opposite sex. I’m talking about publishing companies that specialize in romance novels. That particular branch of the publishing industry is more female-friendly than a convention hall filled to the rafters with Xena: Warrior Princess fangirls.
According to the folks at Harlequin Publishing, 99% of the readers of romance novels are women, and most of them are long past nubility. Perhaps readers isn’t the most apt word for these women. Women who buy romance novels don’t just read them, they devour them! To this day I still recall a visit I made decades ago to a shopping mall bookstore where I witnessed a middle-aged woman carefully carrying a towering stack of paperback romances and gingerly placing them on the counter – without spilling one! She was literally buying them by the yard.
If you ever visit used paperback stores, you know most the stock fits into several predictable categories. If you check out the space devoted to romance novels, I daresay you will find more square footage than for science fiction, mysteries, westerns, or any other popular paperback genre. Most romance novels are traditional, but there are also various sub-genres. Just as pornography caters to an array of fetishes, so do romance novels…interracial, lesbian, cowboys, nurses, time travel – even Amish!
Now I don’t object to the fact that 99% of the readership is female. Equity in terms of readership would serve no purpose for the manosphere. Besides, outside of school, you can’t command people to read books they don’t want to read.
But I do think men should demand equity in the writing of such novels. There’s a lot of money to be made on this stuff. In 2017, romance/erotica made $1.44 billion. The second best-selling genre was crime/mystery at roughly half as much, $728.2 million. So a male scribbler who mastered the formula of the romance genre could greatly enhance his income.
Another statistic says that 90% of the writers of romance novels are women. It may be a surprise that even 10% of the writers are men, but you could never tell that by looking at the names of the authors. One must look long and hard to find a romance bearing the name of a male author.
To be sure, pen names are used for a variety of reasons. Some more high-toned female authors may use a pen name because they wouldn’t want their colleagues in academia to know that they dabble in such a low-status genre (though there are critics who assert that the only reason romance novels are lacking in prestige is because the genre is dominated by females). So it’s understandable that men who write romance novels would use some sort of female pseudonym. They don’t want their buddies to know what they’re doing, but more importantly, a prospective female reader might look askance at a paperback romance penned by a man. How could a male author create a believable heroine?
Well, we could mention Leo Tolstoy (Anna Karenina), Gustave Flaubert (Madame Bovary), or Henry James (Daisy Miller) for a few, but those are examples of bona fide high-falutin’ literature read by both males and females. Mass-market genre fiction, is another realm entirely. So let’s ponder whether or not a male author can write to the romance market.
Except in cases of extreme narcissism, it takes two to tango in a romance novel. Lesbian romances aside, the heroine must have some sort of man to pair off with. The female authors have no trouble creating swains for their heroines. Are any of these male characters believable? How could a female author possibly create an authentic male character?
Remember, none of the female authors has the lived experience of maleness. Personally, I hate that phrase “lived experience,” since it is redundant, unless you’re talking about vicarious experience. Also, I don’t like it because it is almost always employed by someone complaining of having been marginalized. Human marginalia are inevitable in any society, but you can’t come right out and say that. Nevertheless, I’m going to wield the concept of lived experience, even though my use of the phrase reeks of patriarchy. I confess to being an old white male or, if you prefer, a dead white male in training.
To most men, the hero of a romance novel is laughable. He is almost always the answer to a woman’s prayers. If he is not rich (though living in a mansion doesn’t hurt), he has great expectations. If he is not drop-dead handsome, he is rugged and spends his time “doing manly things.” But they’re the good kind of manly things. He would never do chainsaw sculptures and sell them at flea markets.
He may have a drink now and then, some sort of expensive imported spirits, but he will never drink himself into a babbling stupor. And he might enjoy an occasional sports event on the tube but he would never watch football nonstop all weekend, every weekend from September through December – and he certainly wouldn’t waste his time on a fantasy football league.
He will likely have an impressive set of wheels. No, not a muscle car, but some sort of understated/overpriced import. His dashboard will not be graced by a quivering topless hula dancer. No fuzzy dice or air fresheners hanging from his rearview mirror. And unlike his coarser brethren he would never think of keeping a Big Gulp cup in his car for an emergency piss bucket.
The male romance hero might seem to have it all…except for one thing. He lacks a good woman (conveniently enough, the heroine) to complete him – his better half, as married folk were wont to say.
If he has some sort of deep, dark secret, so much the better. I don’t mean that he is a serial rapist in remission or he suffers from chronic projectile diarrhea or seborrhea of the genitalia. It has to be some romantic deep, dark secret. Something that he shares with no one…but our heroine, who can help him bear his burden.
One example you might remember from high school English is Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre. Granted, we’re talking 1847, almost a century before the rise of the paperback, but it is an instructive example.
Jane Eyre’s employer, Mr. Rochester, is a brooder. He has a good reason to brood, however. He is already married to a nutter, albeit tucked away, who turns out to be a suicidal pyromaniac!
Brooding and moodiness are good traits for the male lead in a romance novel. Charlotte’s sister Emily created an equally famous male brooder – remember Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights? In fact, going all the way back to Hamlet, why do you think Ophelia found the moody Dane so attractive? Of course, she went nuts in the process, but overdosing (five acts!) on brooding and moodiness will do that to a girl.
In a different medium, consider the case of James Dean. He became a legend even though he only starred in three movies (Rebel Without a Cause, East of Eden, and Giant). But the moody S.O.B. brooded in every one of them! Marlon Brando and Paul Newman deserve honorable mention in any cinematic brood-off, but they lived long enough to exhibit other forms of behavior. I think Dean was fated to be the cinematic equivalent of a Byronic hero, so-called because the famed poet, George Gordon (Lord) Byron, a leading figure in the Romantic movement, was given to moody brooding. Why do I say Dean was destined? His middle name was Byron!
Dean was only 24 when he died; true, the bobbysoxers swooned over him, but they and he were a bit too young for romance fiction. His fans, however, were future consumers of romance novels and he was on track to be a mature but moody man, an archetypal male lead in a romance novel. But the brooder is not the only archetype.
Another good choice is the alpha male. What female reader wouldn’t want one of them for a soul mate? Think Rhett Butler/Clark Gable in Gone With the Wind. Scarlett O’Hara sheds two husbands before she finally gets to Rhett Butler, a can-do kind of guy who stands up to her and calls her out on her narcissism. The more a woman gabbles on about her independence, the more she is begging for a man to keep her in line…but she will never admit that to anyone, and maybe not to herself. Rhett Butler is such a man.
Whether the male lead is an alpha male or given to moodiness, true love never runs smooth. There is always some major obstacle keeping the man and woman apart. Eventually, the obstacle is cleared away and the man and woman are free to get together and commit. In the case of Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff and Cathy do not consummate their relationship in the flesh, but the tale ends with their ghosts wandering the moors together. (Interesting to note that a contemporary sub-genre of the romance novel is the paranormal romance novel.)
So we’re not talking about high school sweethearts who never dated anyone else, get married and remain married till one of them assumes room temperature many decades later. That’s too easy. Not a bad life, maybe even desirable, but not romantic.
Now it would be great if male authors drew upon their lived experience to create more realistic leading men. I’d love to see a romantic leading man who plays beer pong, collects comic books, and has indelible skid marks on his underwear. But would that appeal to the female readership? Sad to say, I think not. But that doesn’t mean aspiring male authors should give up.
For example, consider a romance novel about a man with a harridan of an ex-wife who has so haunted the man that he simply avoids the opposite sex…until he meets a NAWALT heroine…with a killer bod and season tickets for the Red Sox.
Or a story about a guy brooding over his inability to advance because his office politics is dominated by queen bees, quota queens, and other parasites, so he has totally soured on women…until he meets a NAWALT heroine…with a killer bod who owns a craft brewery that turns out a scintillating Double IPA.
Or he’s been violated by a divorce court judge and vows he will never get married again…until he meets a NAWALT heroine…with a killer bod and an extensive DVD library – including the complete works of Charles Bronson.
Unfortunately, there is no room for the avowed MGTOW in a romance novel. Oh, he may be one at the beginning of the novel but by the end must repent and pair off with the heroine. Riding off alone into the sunset may work just fine in westerns, but not in romance novels.
Considering the income potential of churning out romance novels, I think equity in the authorship of same is a course worth pursuing; however, I don’t think demanding equity in the writing of romance novels will avail us anything. Remember, women’s rights are human rights but men’s rights usually appear with quotation marks around them (printed when written, air when oral). So demonstrating/rioting in front of Harlequin Books HQ might get you on YouTube but it probably won’t get results. There’s more than one way to assault a fortress, however.
Consider the possibility of writing under a female pen name. If you have a unisex name like Terry or Leslie, you’ve got it made. If not, then something dignified and mature, vaguely Ango-Saxon…like Nora Roberts, Johanna Lindsey, Julia Quinn, Jessica Bird, Julie Garwood…these are all good, but these names have been taken Stay away from names like Appasionata or Hypatia. Certainly not Zsa Zsa. Nothing too ethnic – no LaKeisha Washington or Sadie Rabinowitz or Agnieszka Kowalski…unless you’re writing for an ethnic niche of the romance market.
It is improbable but not impossible for a man to write under his own name. Consider the case of Nicholas Sparks, who wrote Nights in Rodanthe, which was filmed in 2008 with Richard Gere and Diane Lane. A male pen name is not out of the question either. One such author is Damon Suede. Great pen name, but he specializes in male-on-male relationships. If you’re lived experience doesn’t include same, probably best to pass on this market.
Truth to tell, there appears to be something of a homosexual subtext in the covers of romance novels. Look at how many covers include a chiseled, bare-chested (but oddly hairless) male. I suppose you could say this is to compensate for all the male-oriented publications that feature chesty females on the cover – “Tit for tat,” as Hardy used to say to Laurel. But could it be that such covers are made to appeal to a secondary market – the closeted gay male? (“Oh, I’m just buying them for my sister…she can’t get enough of these things.”)
So if you’re interested in penning a romance novel and, more importantly, getting it published, where to start? Well, you could buy a copy of Writing a Romance Novel for Dummies, by Leslie Wainger, an Executive Editor at Harlequin Books. (I assume the author means the dummy is the aspiring author, and is not implying that romance novels are for dummies, but you could read it either way.)
At any rate, here are the five fundamentals:
A sympathetic heroine
a strong, irresistible hero (extra credit for brooding…just my opinion)
an interesting, believable plot
and a happy ending (fairy tales can come true…it can happen to you…).
Just so we’re clear, we’re not talking rape culture. it’s ravish culture. Not ravage! Ravish! If you don’t understand the difference, you, sir, are no candidate for romance novel author. Ironically enough, romance novels used to be called bodice rippers, but I wouldn’t utter that phrase today.
So don’t let all that lived experience go to waste when you could profit from it financially while fighting the good fight for equity in the world of romance novel authorship.
Or you could just sit at home and brood about it.