Anti-gynocentrism is the only anti-feminism that matters

December 1, 2019September 21, 2023 / Peter Wright / 2 Comments

Men’s Rights Advocates have often watched with bemusement as newcomers arrive declaring support for men, with a resume saying just one thing: “I’m an antifeminist,” as if that were all we needed to know.

Because antifeminism and men’s rights activism is synonymous, right? That’s literally what they assume.

With the resume tabled they quickly move to promote a gynocentric tradition that gushes about males saving women from floods, fires, bullets, or sparing them from minor inconveniences in life – like discomfort, dirt, criticism or employment. Feminine women, they say, are best preserved as home-makers; each woman as precious as the fingers of a concert pianist which must never be put under strain. Men, they say, are heroes, put on this earth to lift heavy things as Jordan Peterson would say, and lift them specifically for the fragile, and of course pregnant, womenfolk.

“Life back then was as close as we can get to perfect” they foam, “it was an arrangement that saw feminine women give compliments to men for ongoing sacrifices — an arrangement far superior to the feminist approach which goes out of its way to denigrate men while expecting those very same sacrifices to continue.”

It is superior because massaging a man’s ego in exchange for expected sacrifice is somehow less denigrating than saying, as the feminists do, “we hate you.” But is such gratitude really better when both feminist and traditionalist women continue to expect male servitude – when they both reduce men to the role of ‘do things for me’?

That is the essence of the deal: a little ego-stroking in exchange for a man destroying himself. She inflates his ego like a helium balloon, at least in the area of saving, serving and pedestalizing her, and he signs up for a smorgasbord of self-destructive sacrifices and an earlier death.

We could be forgiven for interpreting the traditionalist woman’s complimenting of male sacrifice as superficial gushing, offered up with all the sincerity of a Miss World candidate saying she wants to bring about world peace, while watching the corpses pile up around her.

That appears to be the gynocentric tradition that most anti-feminists are peddling, the one they would substitute in place of feminist models. Here I should add that not all traditionalists are like that – at least not for the tiny minority of red pill men and women who seek to preserve the otherwise valuable, non-gynocentric aspects of tradition.

Some readers might protest that we should be grateful for those charging forward to destroy progressive gynocentrism (feminism) in order to substitute traditional gynocentrism in its place. But for this old timer that program reads like a rejection of Judas, in order to take sides with Iscariot.

I’m sure you all get the point.

As Paul Elam once summarized, ‘anti-gynocentrism is the only anti-feminism that matters.’

Compare the traditional gynocentrist as described above with women who are neither feminist nor traditional gynocentrist; women like Janice Fiamengo, Suzanne McCarley, Elizabeth Hobson, Alison Tieman, Hanna Wallen and countless others who are as quick to question the unbalanced privileges of traditional women as they are the privileges held by feminists. The difference in perspective between these two kinds of women couldn’t be more stark.

The rest unfortunately are frauds, women masquerading as allies while inviting men to adopt a women-serving scam with the bait of a 1950s smock and a demure look, women who are today unwilling to match men with reciprocal gestures or labor, nor the shouldering of life’s stresses. When traditional gynocentric women are featured in media interviews, gushing praise for the usefulness of “masculinity” and “real men” who save women from house fires, one can’t help but notice there’s an absence of discussion of what’s in it for the men, as if its not a relevant concern.

Perhaps praising is a form of respect for men, but respect for what? On face value it looks like that of a narcissist who “respects” others as food to satisfy his/her impersonal gluttony for special treatment.

Perhaps I could be more generous and say that rather than trying to enslave men, the I’m-Not-A-Feminist Gynocentrists are simply behind the times, believing that they are championing the lesser of the only two evils on offer. They view it as the lesser of the two evils because, under traditional gynocentrism, men were at least complimented for their labor, and given medals after their deaths – a thing denied under the feminist vision which sees men and women as competitors for narcissistic turf in which only women receive compliments; not men, but women alone are the ‘Stunning and the Brave.’

Sadly, the traditional contract under which that situation worked, the one that limited men’s and women’s options in favor of narrow set roles, can no longer work in a culture that refuses to encourage and support that same contract. Wave after wave of feminist activity has seen the toothpaste squeezed completely out of the tube. Women will never go back to the role of baby-making, apple-pie cooking wives, because any attempt to reduce women’s multi-option life will be met with resentment, if not interpreted as abuse. Therefore any attempts to enact that traditional role today will amount to little more than cosplay.

Swapping progressive gynocentrism for traditional gynocentrism is going nowhere. We can no more turn back the clock on Women’s Liberation than we should ignore the fact that’s Men’s Liberation now is due — men who no longer need to be tied to the traditionalist role of He-for-She.

Before bringing this article to a close I want to come back to the question of what, if anything, is the value of anti-feminism for the men’s rights movement. To that, two of the more obvious answers come to mind.

Firstly, antifeminist work pushes back against efforts to create more He-For-She demands, e.g. for men’s supposed responsibility to stop partner violence; for men’s responsibility to address the wage gap; for men to assist in promoting affirmative action policies; to do more household chores; for taking up too much female space on public transport, or for not setting the office air conditioning to women’s desired temperature. These and many more ‘patrarchy-do’ lists amount to little more than collective female nagging, which anti-feminists are helping to call out in the public domain.

Secondly, anti-feminists fight the widespread censorship of men’s issues by feminists. The problem of feminist-driven deplatforming and censorship was even apparent in Ernest B. Baxs’ day, which he described in the year 1913; “[Feminists] seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known.” In response there has always existed people within the MRM who push back against feminist-driven censorship of men’s issues, and indeed censorship from other sources, and this needs to continue with full force.

To put these two concerns in context, pushing back against feminist demands on men, and feminist censorship, have never been the only goal of the men’s movement despite claims by some that the MRM is synonymous with ‘antifeminist backlash.’ To suggest equivalence is to confuse purely antifeminist movements with the much broader portfolio of the men’s human rights movement.

A survey of the last 100 years reveals that the MRM is concerned more directly with issues impacting men and boys such as alimony, genital mutilation of male infants, homelessness, mental illness, false accusations, family court bias, suicide, child custody, low funding for male health issues, legal discrimination, educational performance, and misandry in mainstream culture just to name a few. And just as important, a pressing issue today is fostering of more life choices for men: Its time for men to embrace whatever options exist beyond the narrowly prescribed role of serving women – just as women long ago rejected narrow roles and responsibilities toward men.

The time for the multi-option man is now.

Gynocentrism And The Demographic Implosion Of Western Civilisation

November 25, 2019July 13, 2020 / Peter Ryan / 3 Comments

By Peter Ryan

Things Are Not As Simple As They Seem

In this article I wanted to share a comment I made in relation to Sargon’s video¹ on the increasing trend of people not having children. He was specifically addressing an article about Emma Watson and her choice to “self-partner” and remain single. He went on further to share his thoughts more broadly, about the trend among men and women of not having children. Whilst I certainly think that the importance of people having children to replace society is a valid point, I think he misses the mark by failing to address the environment that is producing this problem and that he focuses too much on individual selfishness as a cause. So I have left a comment below on his video addressing that:

“Shaming people for not breeding in this highly dysfunctional gynocentric society, is like blaming people for leaving a burning building. The sexes are naturally attracted to each other. We have not had a problem replacing ourselves for the entire history and prehistory of our species. Healthy males and females in healthy functional societies, where relationships are healthy and functional, reproduce just fine without shaming people.

It is quite interesting how quickly people are ready to shame single men in particular for being single (and I note it is almost always directed at single men and not single women, because we are that gynocentric we blindly adhere to gynocentric double standards like zombies), but stop the presses if we look at and criticise the gynocentric bias in family court, divorce, the feminist criminalisation and demonisation of masculinity in the legal system and wider culture and the deliberate marginalisation of men in education and employment and the legal system and all of the associated effects that has on men not partnering up and remaining single.

We could look at the effect of the neglect of boy’s education in the feminised education system, feminist employment quotas and its mismatch with female mate choice which is at least partly based on male earnings and female hypergamy, as just one example of many.

If people are SO concerned about the population not replacing itself, how about having the courage to deal with the rampant gynocentrism² that is at the root of the problem? The usual silence of course will follow no doubt. People can keep ignoring gynocentrism all they like- Until gynocentrism is confronted our civilisation will continue its path of decline. Mark my words- No amount of shaming men will stop this problem. Gynocentrism will continue to destroy society until it is confronted.

I understand Sargon is talking about Emma here, but he is also talking about the growing numbers of single people in general (male and female). What he does not address in the video, is the toxic anti-male gynocentric environment that is driving the low birth rate. He talks about taking responsibility for perpetuating the society that birthed and raised us, but then fails to mention this same society cultivated the very environment that generated the problem he is talking about in the first place. How about the responsibility older generations and society as a whole has for creating a gynocentric feminist environment where the population does not replace itself? Insert crickets.

See responsibility works both ways. If you bring a future generation into this world, you are responsible for making sure you raise them right and preserve your culture and address social dysfunction so they have a healthy society to raise your grandchildren in. You better make sure you protect your culture and values and don’t continuously ignore social problems like gynocentrism.

So you see, society actually has no right to point the finger at younger people not breeding in an environment that is the result of decades of reckless disregard for societies future by older generations. This video is 30 years too late and now older generations and this feminist society will reap what it is sown.

You want to fix this problem? Stop blaming people for leaving a burning building and start putting out the fire.”

Sargon does some brilliant work, but in this instance I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding presented in his video, of the nature of the problem behind the low birth rates in the West and what is actually required to perpetuate society. I do not think things are as simple as Sargon describes in his video and I do think we need to be honestly appraising just how healthy and functional Western culture actually is at the moment, given how gynocentrism permeates almost every aspect of it.

The Gynocentric Cancer Destroying Our Society

Men and women are biologically wired to reproduce and pass on their genes. This is a key driving force of our evolution and the evolution of all living things. The fact that our society has become so dysfunctional that substantial numbers of men and women are not reproducing despite the natural drive to do so, speaks volumes about just how irresponsible older generations and the present population have been to let our culture and society degrade to this level. In our gynocentric culture, we place women on a pedestal and we place men in service to women and then we expect through our collective wilful ignorance, that this dynamic will not lead to exploitation and dysfunction.

This gynocentric mindset has destroyed marriage and relationships, broken up the family and caused an epidemic of single motherhood and fatherlessness. As Stardusk (or Thinking Ape) describes in this video³, our low birth rates are in many respects the result of society putting men down to lift women up and artificially elevated female hypergamy. This mismatch guarantees a low birth rate and the collapse of the welfare state Sargon is so concerned about in his video, when he discusses the pension. This is what happens when society throws men under the bus to pedestalise women. Men are the golden goose that keeps society running and society is killing the golden goose.

The support within our culture and wider society to place female well-being above male well-being and the willful ignorance of the long-term consequences of this imbalance coupled with modernity, has led to where we are now- A dying society. This is a society where men can be put in jail if they fail to pay alimony to their ex-wives (who can work) to finance their lifestyle, even if it exceeds their income or they are unemployed. This is a society where men can have their lives destroyed from a single unproven allegation by a woman and their false accusers can walk away with no consequence. This is a society where in some places⁴, boys who are statutorily raped by adult women, can later be forced to pay child support to their abusers.

This is a society of fatherlessness, where single motherhood is encouraged and fathers are denigrated in our culture and marginalised in our family courts and legal system. Multiple generations of boys and girls have now grown up through divorce and family court and many of them have been denied any meaningful relationship with their father. This is a society where the needs of boys and men in education and employment are ignored and where the needs of girls and women in these areas are prioritised.

Sargon is correct to criticise the selfishness, narcissism and solipsism arising from the culture of female entitlement. However, I cannot agree on his broad criticism of men and women that choose to remain single (like many MGTOW) and not have children. Choosing to have children is a choice and not a responsibility. Choosing not to have children in this highly dysfunctional gynocentric culture, is completely understandable and that is especially so for men.

When you bring a life into this world, you are responsible for raising them and ensuring they have a meaningful constructive future. Increasing numbers of younger people are looking at the future and have serious concerns about the trajectory society is on. Many of these younger people come from broken homes and have seen what divorce and family court does. Many have lived it and experienced the consequences of it directly. Young men in particular, have every reason to be sceptical about marriage, relationships and starting a family.

Many younger people are aware of our enormous and ever-increasing national debts, the huge unfunded government liabilities, the unaffordable housing and the reality our governments have done nothing to address these problems for decades. They are aware of the death spiral of debt the West is in and the increasing prospect of a major depression and a major global conflict with China. Massive student debt and unaffordable housing, combined with the reality of divorce and family court, just add further barriers to men and women starting families and keeping them intact (should they even start one).

Not everyone has the means to raise a child with living costs and housing being so expensive and with employment becoming increasingly volatile and unstable (especially with automation and globalisation). Many younger men in particular are struggling to get a start in life, because of the marginalisation of boy’s education, the effects of fatherlessness and the introduction of feminist employment quotas and selective hiring policies catering to women that discriminate against men. Young men obviously are going to find it more difficult to marry and raise children, when the deck has literally been stacked against them and no effort is being made to address the issues they are facing in education and employment.

No one discusses these realities and they have remained unaddressed for decades. These problems have actually worsened across the West and continue to do so. Then we wonder why people are not breeding. How responsible is it to simply breed and have no regard for the quality of life your children will have? Reproducing without having the means to properly raise children and without considering their future, is reckless and irresponsible. Not having children is sometimes the responsible thing to do.

Not all people should have children and be parents either. Some people are too irresponsible to raise children, or they simply do not have the financial means to properly support children. The continuation of Western civilisation is dependent on far more than just mindless breeding. Having children requires proper planning and investment from both individuals and from wider society, so that future generations are raised properly and preserve the society and culture. Producing large numbers of your children in single mother households with no father, ensures you will have future generations of dysfunctional adults and that your society will decline and regress. Fatherhood is required for modern, developed and advanced countries to stay modern, developed and advanced. Simply breeding with no regard for anything else, just creates countries of poor people.

Why So Many MGTOW Opt Out Of Marriage And Children

No one ever asks the question- Why do so many men that go their own way (MGTOW) choose not to marry and have children? Why is it that growing numbers of men are voluntarily walking away from getting married and starting a family?

The answer, aside from what I have already stated in this article, is that marriage is now essentially a slave contract where the human rights of men can be nullified through the divorce process at the whim of women. That is actual reality and not an exaggeration. Fathers are now reduced to temporary legal guardians that can be removed from their children by the mother at any stage and with the full force of the state. Men are not walking away from marriage and family, because these concepts now exist in name only. Men are walking away from a broken toxic gynocentric system of state sanctioned exploitation. A system that places the needs of women first and the needs of men and children last.

Childless Incels

I do not agree with Sargon either that involuntarily celibate people that by their own label want to reproduce, should be shamed for not doing so. I am frankly surprised Sargon is not able to see the logical inconsistency in his own argument. Shaming people for not doing something they clearly voluntarily want to do, is not going to achieve anything. It makes me wonder whether Sargon understood that the letter “i” in incel stands for involuntary. I think he misspoke here.

Where The Problem Really Lies

Frankly the problem of our low birth rate, does not lie with single men or single women. Sargon says this is a good society with good values that should be continued and yet it cannot replace itself. There are plenty of things to like about the West, but ultimately it is the cancer of gynocentrism in the West (which feminism is just a symptom of) that will ensure it declines. This society is dysfunctional because it allows gynocentrism to grow unopposed and the result has been the breakdown of the family, marriage and relationships and an epidemic of fatherlessness and single motherhood. If Western civilisation is so “good” and if our values are so great, then why can’t it sustain itself? Clearly there is something wrong with a society that cannot continue itself.

This is not a “good” society with “great” values. This is a dying society living off its past greatness and pretending everything is okay under a thin veneer of debt laden decadence. Great values? This is a society that abandons free speech, due process, human rights and basic morals in the face of gynocentrism. Unless something radical happens, the world will be talking about the fall of Western civilisation in a few centuries time.

Simply replacing people with new people, is just one part of continuing society and hardly all of what is required. It is imperative that society confronts and addresses problems that threaten its existence, such as gynocentrism and our over-reliance on debt and does not just keep ignoring them and kicking the can down the road (The “I will be dead by then mentality” of the boomer generation comes to mind.). It seems to me that the people so concerned about society not replacing itself, don’t seem concerned enough to confront the source of the problem- gynocentrism. How responsible is that? Think about that for a moment.

This article is not just in response to Sargon. So many other people, particularly from the “Alt-Right”, traditionalists and nationalists, are quick to judge people and particularly men that do not breed, as selfish and irresponsible. They give no consideration of the state of the debt driven society we are living in and how this toxic gynocentric environment is discouraging people and particularly men from having children. In reality many men are that responsible, they see it as irresponsible to raise children in a dying debt laden society that is living on borrowed time, treats men like slaves, rewards and even glamorises women for their bad behaviour and does not hold such women accountable.

The Sun Is Setting In The West

This video⁵ was recently made by Stardusk on the contrast between how the West and China regards single motherhood and the impact that is going to likely have on the future of the two societies. Fatherlessness and single motherhood in the West, will contribute to its fall. Sustaining your society is not just about pumping out babies. Society must ensure that they properly raise younger generations to become well-adjusted adults and that the culture and institutions are preserved to provide them with a proper future.

What we have seen over at least the last three decades, is a complete failure of the West to properly raise future generations. We have seen the rapid rise of fatherlessness and the breakdown of the family. We have also witnessed the feminist corruption and decline of our institutions, particularly at our universities and in our legal systems. The magnitude of the damage fatherlessness, the breakdown of the family and the decline of our institutions is going to leave on our civilisation in the coming decades, will be simply enormous. We have witnessed nothing yet, the jet-black storm on the horizon has been building for 50 years.

The sun will be setting in the West and rising in the East over the course of this century. The West is not the best. We actually encourage single motherhood, we have let feminism destroy our institutions and we have marginalised men, boys and fathers. Gynocentrism will play a large role in our undoing. Time to wake up and recognise that we are not as good a civilisation or culture as we think we are. The question is this- Do we value female approval more than we value the continuation of civilisation? At the moment it seems the answer is yes. For that we deserve what we get.

When I think of the future I remind myself that no one can know what the future may hold with certainty. We all have to take collective responsibility for the future of our society and hold our governments accountable for the decisions they make our behalf.

What I see at the moment, is a society on the decline and headed for a major war (possibly a world war). I see a society that prefers to live in decadence and blissful ignorance and refuses to make the hard decisions required to address the serious social and economic problems it faces. I see older generations kicking the can down the road and passing the buck onto younger generations and no one in government taking any responsibility for the long-term prosperity and security of our countries.

That does not have to be our future. We could solve a great deal of problems if society had the collective will to say no to gynocentrism and restore balance between the sexes. Valuing men is not antithetical to civilisation, it is essential to civilisation. In actuality it was treating men as disposable that led to gynocentrism running rampant to begin with and reaching a level where it now threatens the very existence of society.

A fempocalypse⁶ is not some farfetched idea, it is the logical end point to the crazy train of gynocentrism- We need to find the brakes fast.

* * *

A Follow-Up To The Article Above: Take The Loaded Gun Out Of The Room

I noticed after writing this article, that Sargon has done a follow-up video⁷ on the baby boomers and responded to some of the criticism levelled by people at his earlier video that I addressed. Consequently I would like to respond to that. It is good to see that he has identified the substantial degree of responsibility of older generations for the gynocentric and economic mess that future generations have inherited. I mentioned this as well in my own article.

I cannot agree though with Sargon’s stance on marriage in the modern cultural and legal climate and encouraging men to marry in our current gynocentric society. As I discussed, marriage is no longer marriage. Marriage is now a scam and the marital contract is now a legal instrument that can be used to extort men and enslave them. The family court and divorce process has so thoroughly undermined what marriage was, that marriage as a functional and legally binding contract to formalise a healthy mutually beneficial partnership between men and women to raise a family, simply just does not exist. Marriage is no longer marriage and this needs to be recognised.

I am not suggesting formal partnerships between men and women should not exist. I am stating the fact that modern marriage is no longer a formal partnership in which the interests of men and women are equally protected under the law. If marriage was a business partnership, no one would start a business. As long as women carry around the “loaded gun” that feminists have placed in their hands, which divorce, family court and domestic violence legislation represents, there can be no proper partnership. This is what feminists wanted and feminists have succeeded. They have succeeded because our gynocentric culture places female well-being above male well-being and female interests above male interests.

The notion by Sargon that women should show “restraint” in not exercising the power they have thanks to the gynocentric bias in family court, divorce and domestic violence legislation, in order to encourage men to marry, is not a solution. We are talking about men’s basic human rights being infringed upon by women with the full force of the state and there is no justification for half-measures. If things were in reverse, we would not be asking men to “restrain themselves” to encourage young women to marry them. We would not be finding ways to make this system “work”, if women were treated in divorce and family court like men are. We would be tearing the whole system down, encouraging women not to marry and marching in the streets with torches.

The mere possibility that women at their whim, can use the state to imprison men that displease them, alienate fathers from their own children and turn men into indentured servants to finance their lifestyles, is a disgusting indefensible crime. It is an abuse of human rights and this modern system of marriage and divorce has no place in a supposedly civilised society. There is no justification for this system and “marriage” in its present form (which is now marriage in name only), regardless as to whether women show “restraint”- Take the loaded gun out of the room. No ifs, no buts, no excuses, no half-measures. Men have a right not to have their basic rights threatened.

Men should not be put in a secondary position to women when it comes to marriage, the family, divorce, family court and the law. That should just be assumed, it should not even have to be stated. Sargon recognises that there needs to be change and I would wholeheartedly agree. There needs to be fundamental reform of divorce and family court. There needs to be reform in our legal system regarding correcting the imbalance introduced by feminist domestic violence legislation and feminist driven policy. There needs to be renewed respect for fathers and men in general. The list is a mile long with things that need to be changed. Until that happens, marriage in its present form is not marriage and it is about time we stopped living in denial about that. It is time society confronted the stench coming from the family court and divorce extortion industry and bureaucracy.

References:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtYO4zJQw2c
2. https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/diagnosing-gynocentrism/
3. https://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/legally-obscene/
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jtybXWGhFw
5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_If9t9FLTs
6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w__PJ8ymliw
7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3v67IrYtvw

A sentimental continuation of coverture

November 6, 2019October 10, 2023 / Peter Wright / 1 Comment

Most of us have observed the baffling refusal of women to take responsibility for mistakes, or for outright shitty behavior. More accurately said, we’ve all observed women’s tendency to impute responsibility for their transgressions to others; especially to men. Thousands of people recognize the tendency; they discuss it, make jokes about it, suffer it in their marriages, and every single day you can read hundreds of new anecdotes demonstrating it in action. In short, it’s definitely a thing.

Where the hell does does this behavior originate?

Some might view it as a genetic phenomenon, that women’s refusal to take responsibility arises from a genetic imperative. Or perhaps we might accept a pretzel-shaped argument from an Evolutionary Psychologist finding that women’s shirking of responsibility is a necessary sexual or survival strategy. Unfortunately such hypotheses do little more than mirror the traditionalist custom of absolving women of responsibility.

For this article I’m going to pose a simpler, culturally rooted explanation: coverture.

The doctrine of coverture, in its most basic definition, dictates that husbands are to take responsibility for wives’ wellbeing, and also to suffer proxy punishment for her social and legal transgressions – all responsibility rests with the husband whether he likes it or not.

As a social policy, the doctrine of coverture began to develop from approximately the 11th century, gaining currency throughout the British Isles from where it was imported to the wider world via English colonies. Douglas Galbi summarises the intent of coverture as follows:

Coverture was the idea that husband and wife are one under law. More specifically, coverture assigned to the husband responsibility and punishment under law for his wife’s criminal acts. Coverture also protected women from mass imprisonment for debt in early modern England…

Coverture was among a range of institutions and ideas that generated highly disproportionate imprisonment of men. Legal history conventionally interprets coverture as a legal concept oppressing women. Coverture oppressed women in the same way that men-only Selective Service registration oppresses women today…

Coverture has been badly misunderstood in legal history. Coverture assigned to husbands responsibility for their wives’ criminal acts and their wives’ debts. Coverture increased the criminalization of men… Anti-men bias in invoking coverture is a general rhetorical pattern built upon deep structures of gynocentrism.¹

According to the Oxford Dictionary, coverture originally referred to anything used as a cover, such as a shelter, the lid of a cup or dish, the cover of a book, or the cover of a bed, and is synonymous with the general and collective sense of ‘covering.’

In its wider sense, the purpose of a coverture is described as any device used to provide protection, shelter, or adornment. Interestingly, it can also mean to conceal as in a veil or disguise used to foster covert conduct or to deceive. In the latter sense coverture “covers a multitude of sins,” thereby offering a pretense, a justification, and a defense for egregious conduct.

The social doctrine of coverture saw that men “covered” for women’s sins in exchange for the husband’s supposed privilege of authority; a privilege we could justifiably read as a poisoned chalice when one considers the number of men that went to the gallows in place of their wives.

Fast forward to the 19th century when coverture laws were still in place, and the advent of feminism was beginning. Feminists hit upon a plan to remove the “male authority” facet of the coverture doctrine, but to retain the “male responsibility for women’s wrongdoing” aspect of it. In effect they split coverture down the middle, trashing one half of the doctrine and continuing to preserve the other. As E. B. Bax observed:

“For it is a significant and amusing fact that no mention is ever made by the advocate of women’s claims of the privileges which have always been accorded the “weaker sex.” These privileges are quietly pocketed as a matter of course, without any sort of acknowledgment, much less any suggestion of surrender.” Some Heterodox Notes on the Women Question (1887)

“This public opinion regards it as axiomatic that women are capable of everything men are capable of, that they ought to have full responsibility in all honourable and lucrative functions and callings. There is only one thing for which unlimited allowance ought to be made on the ground of their otherwise non-existent womanly inferiority, and that is their own criminal or tortious acts! In a word, they are not to be held responsible, in the sense that men are, for their own actions when these entail unpleasant consequences for themselves. On the contrary, the obloquy and, where possible, the penalty for the wrong-doing is to be shifted on to the nearest wretched man with whom they have consorted.”
Why I Am an Anti-Suffragist (1909)

“To men all duties and no rights, to women all rights and no duties, is the basic principle underlying Modern Feminism, Suffragism, and the bastard chivalry it is so fond of invoking.”
The Fraud of Feminism, Chapter VII: The Psychology of the Movement (1913)

Further to Bax’s claim that the penalty for women’s wrongdoing got shifted onto the nearest wretched man, we appear to have come in the 21st century to not only maintaining, but amplifying the blame game in an effort to retain the “dignity, esteem, and reputation” of today’s women — a blame game that has its unbroken root in the tradition of coverture.

If the theory of ongoing-coverture satisfies the baffling question of why women shirk responsibility, then we at least have an answer. Women want to maintain the historical tradition of having their transgressions excised, hidden and covered by men, while they go about securing the gynocentric utopia they have been so effective at building.

Maintenance of sentimental coverture rightly belongs to gynocentrism theory. For how could gynocentrism survive if women took more responsibility, if they were more accountable for their acts? Quite simply gynocentrism couldn’t survive on that basis, particularly if their aim is one of fairness and equality which can only be achieved by truly emancipating women and holding them responsible for their actions.

So as a working model lets add sentimental coverture as one of 5 pillars of a gynocentric temple, which would look something like this:

1. Chivalry,
2. Courtly/romantic love,
3. Gender narcissism,
4. Coverture, and lastly
5. Power-seeking (via the long march through the institutions of power, this strategy being evident for centuries before Marxism was dreamed up, as for example in the writing of Christine De Pizan and her ‘City of Ladies’).

In summary, this article posits that coverture has survived long beyond its historical use in law, becoming a social custom divested of its original legal framework. Whatever the merits of its original purpose, the sentimental continuation of coverture provides an enduring custom encouraging women’s shirking of personal responsibility – this thanks in no small part to the activism of the feminist movement which postures as progressive, but turns out to be the same as it ever was.

References:

[1] Galbi, Douglass, Coverture, Domestic Violence & Criminalization of Men (2015)

The wonders of feminism combined with the sentimental continuation of coverture

How to destroy a society

October 29, 2019July 13, 2020 / Peter Ryan / Leave a comment

By Peter Ryan

Every now and then I write a comment on a YouTube video that I like to share and this is one of them. Paul, Tom and Janice were recently discussing a book titled, “How To Destroy A Man Now”¹. The book might as well have been titled, “How To Destroy A Society Now”. It is a guide on how gynocentrism² can be used to subvert our legal system and institutions and destroy individual men and civilisation (or what it calls “patriarchy” aka civilisation).

The mere existence of the book and others like it, highlight why it is absurd to claim that society is a patriarchy run by men for the benefit of men and that women are the “nicer” and more empathetic sex. All people have to do to recognise this, is imagine what the social reaction would be if a man wrote a book titled, “How To Destroy A Woman Now”. Men in this culture do not write such books about the opposite sex. In stark contrast, women in this culture do write such books about the opposite sex and this book about destroying men is not an isolated example. The End Of Men³ and Are Men Necessary?⁴, are other examples of such literature written by women (and I can cite more examples).

The books play into emotional fantasies (and yes sometimes sexual fantasies) some women hold to humiliate and denigrate men as a sex. This is the mentality our gynocentric society instils in women. It is an emotional power trip for female narcissism⁵ to write and read such garbage about the opposite sex. It makes them feel superior. It is that simple. Are all women like that? No, but this gynocentric culture does nothing but encourage this mentality in women. It is also worth noting the large number of women that stay silent (as many men do) whilst their female counterparts revel in this misandry. In contrast men line up to hold other men in line if they disrespect women, or if men even try to defend themselves against women.

Women are not nicer and they are not more empathetic. Women just do their best to be seen to be nice (it is a form of social camouflage for women) because it adds to their social image and social power, which is their primary form of power aside from the sexual component. This book exposes the lie women are nicer and describes the nature of female violence in detail. It is for this reason, that I would agree with Paul, Tom and Janice that such books should not be banned. The darker side of female nature needs to be exposed and recognised, just as we do with men. There is a saying, “women know what other women are like”. Women know exactly what I am talking about- the truth that women are not all sugar and spice and everything nice and that women can be just as terrible, just as depraved and yes just as evil⁶ as men. This is the ugly truth the book, “How To Destroy A Man Now” forces society to confront and that women understand but speak of only in whispers among themselves.

Freedom of speech allows society to confront its ugly reflection and stop ignoring social problems, hence why such books should not be banned but scrutinised. However I do not agree with Paul, Tom and Janice that this book was written with the manosphere in mind in support of us. As I mentioned earlier, it is my opinion it is far more likely that such books are written to humiliate and denigrate men and to an satisfy an emotional power trip (and sometimes a sexual one as well). There is no elaborate web of reverse psychology required to explain the writing of this book or books like it. Like feminists keep projecting onto men, it is all about power and control for women that enjoy such misandric garbage. Why is the book not available? Not sure, but sometimes they are too naked about their real motives and the feminist establishment censors its own.

I would agree though that, “How To Destroy A Man Now” does serve to expose the nature of female violence. We know in intimate partner relationships that when only one partner is physically violent toward the other, it is women that are more likely to be the perpetrator (at more than double the frequency)⁷. But so much of female violence is not actually physical, as the book demonstrates. Female violence is often expressed as relational aggression and also through inciting institutional and social violence by proxy on the desired male target.

Spreading rumors to destroy a man’s reputation in the community or among his peers is relational aggression and a form of violence that can cause grave harm to the male victim. Using the legal system, divorce and family court system as a weapon to destroy ex-partners, is inciting institutional and social violence by proxy. It is worth noting the high male suicide rate⁸ that follows from the institutional violence associated with divorce and family court that is directed at men and instigated by women. I have not forgotten the story of Chris Mackney⁹ and neither should you. Stories like that are all around us now, thanks to feminism and gynocentrism. Women do not have to shoot men to kill them. It is time these actions were correctly identified as female violence against men. I wonder how many people have looked at the Duluth model and applied it with the sexes reversed? You would be surprised how much of the wheel of power and control applies to female violence against men.

So with that preamble, I have provided the comment below that I made in response to the video of Paul, Tom and Janice discussing this book¹⁰. People may want to watch their discussion first. My comment is as follows (I made one modification to add the links to my earlier work):

“This book exposes the reality that our gynocentric society is based on a number of core social lies- 1. Women are powerless in relation to men. 2. Only men are violent toward the opposite sex. 3. The world is a patriarchy run by men for the benefit of men. 4. Our history is one of men oppressing women. 5. Women are more valuable and deserving of empathy because they give birth and therefore must be protected at the expense of men to preserve the species, regardless of the cost (a lie I have debunked extensively in my writings- Links here¹¹, here¹², here¹³ and here¹⁴ which people can read should they wish to. I have one more article to write on it). It is lie number 5 that lets people look the other way when facts contradict lies 1-4.

You were right the first time Paul, men throwing other men under the bus for women is a glitch in the “patriarchy”. Let us just call patriarchy by its real name shall we- civilisation. Let us not beat around the bush with the truth. The only reason we have a civilised society, is because men cooperate with each other. Once that goes, so does civilised society. Raising children in a civilised society that has the social environment and male productivity to technologically develop to an advanced state and has relatively low levels of male violence, enhances community survival many orders of magnitude and consequently has enormous fitness benefits in a darwinian sense. That all goes once men cease cooperating with each other and throw each other under the bus for women. The metoo# movement is inherently destructive for this very reason. Even primitive tribal societies require some level of male cooperation to subsist and destroy themselves if sufficient numbers of men turn on each other.

The hierarchy men are in, is not all about competition either and involves a great deal of male cooperation to remain stable and functional. Patriarchy is not about culling men in an evolutionary sense (that is a negative by-product rather than a core driving force of the system), but about giving men are means to assort themselves socially and express their sexual market value toward the opposite sex and a means to express their inherent biological value.

It is also worth pointing out that each sex is selected to pass on their genes in the most efficient and effective means possible. Men that willingly sacrifice themselves like doormats either remain cucked, friendzoned or are outmatched by men that reproduce more efficiently. Men that sacrifice other men may benefit in the short-term but not always. Such men may be the target of retributive violence and reduce their trustworthiness within the male social dominance hierarchy, which may then reduce their authority, power and support from other men in said hierarchy, over the long-term. It is a risky strategy for men to throw other men under the bus and it does not always pay off for individual men either (they may die or be exposed for the liars or criminals they are) and it certainly destroys society as a whole in the long term. So whilst there is an element of truth to the idea of men sacrificing other men to get women and to perpetuate their individual genome (just as there is for male sexual violence against women, which is just as heinous and barbaric and certainly something I am not condoning), it is a costly and an ultimately inferior strategy when it is scaled to the level of society.

Societies that are not so cavalier with throwing men under the bus, have greater numbers of stronger and more productive men. Societies that recklessly exploit men, kill the very thing that keeps them going. The army that wins the battle with the least amount of male casualties, has the men to fight another day. The army that carelessly exploits and sacrifices their men, suffers avoidable losses and loses the war. Same thing goes with countries and economies. People need to think things through, before they just discard concern for male well-being.”

It is time for men and frankly the manosphere to wake up. Men have been told their whole life that they have no intrinsic self-worth and are inherently disposable because of being male and not having a uterus. The exploitation of men in this gynocentric system, requires men and boys continue to believe that lie. Reinforcing that message from the manosphere, does nothing but strengthen the lie, especially if it comes from the supposedly red pill world. There is nothing more dangerous to this system than a group of men that know their own worth, reject the lie they are inherently disposable and protect their own well-being. Whether you hear that you are inherently disposable from the blue world or from manosphere, don’t believe the bullshit. Men are much more than sperm dispensers and utilities, no matter how much our gynocentric society would like men to think otherwise.

Keeping men immersed in that lie and on the wheel of learned helplessness, is what keeps gynocentrism chugging along. Heaven forbid the manosphere dare get the idea in their heads that maybe just maybe, men are not inherently biologically disposable and women are not the more valuable sex because of reproduction. The manosphere needs to flush this idea down the toilet where it belongs and stop reinforcing the same message men have already been told their whole lives by this society. People wonder why I write about gynocentrism, the golden uterus and male value so extensively-The reason is simple. That is how much bullshit there is to debunk and set straight when it comes to biology being twisted to justify the erroneous claim men are inherently less valuable than women.

I cannot just rely on common sense to debunk this nonsense, because sense is no longer common in this society. We live in gynocentric clownworld now and have been for 800 or so years¹⁵. We abandoned common sense when it came to men, women and relationships centuries ago. That is why it is so hard even in the manosphere to see through the gynocentric BS. We have no proper frame of reference we can immediately use to calibrate our gynocentric bullshit detectors. However slowly but surely the manosphere is getting there and putting the pieces together. We have not completely awakened from the blue pill world yet, we are still in the process (all of us, myself included).

Keep that in mind before you completely subscribe to an idea and hold it as an unquestionable axiomatic truth or a law of nature. I understand it is common to examine the scientific literature in the manosphere when it comes to biology and evolution (in contrast to feminism where everything is a social construct). This is good in many respects, but please keep in mind that the scientific profession itself is not immune to gynocentric bias. There is frequently a clear bias in the sex difference literature to minimise any perceived male advantage in any area of any value and minimise any perceived unique biological value men may have relative to women period (the opposite frequently holds true for reporting on female advantages).

Pushing research or theories to show men are less than women or biologically expendable, is going with the gynocentric bias of the scientific community and is not necessarily reflective of objective reality or sound science, even if it comes from supposedly accomplished scientists (some of which have an axe to grind against men). Here are links to two examples which I highly recommend people take the time to watch, highlighting this gynocentric bias when it comes to reporting on sex differences in intelligence¹⁶ and male genius and male variability in traits¹⁷. This bias is not just limited to the literature on cognitive abilities either, it is systemic within the scientific community.

Pushing the narrative men are biologically expendable fits with the gynocentric bias within science. Don’t just believe something because a study or scientist says so. Refine your bullshit detector. I have a prior background in the molecular life sciences and I can personally tell you that scientists are just people and not omniscient oracles. Just because you found a study or some scientist said something, does not mean it is true. Scientists can be wrong, theories can be wrong and whole disciplines can be wrong. Look at the data, look at the sampling, look at the methodology and find out if the results have been substantively replicated (there is a great deal of junk science out there). Look at research with a critical eye and remember the scientific method¹⁸.

We have to move past this fatalistic concept it is in our nature to exploit men and therefore accept it as some immutable aspect of human nature we can do nothing about. It is in our nature to do a lot of things, including rape, murder and genocide. The fact behaviour may have a biological basis to it (as all human behaviour does to varying degrees), does not mean it is biologically optimal to act that way, or that it is the most evolutionarily successful strategy, or that it is inevitable it will become commonplace to express it. Rape is one strategy to pass on your genes, but that does not mean it is biologically optimal or the most evolutionarily successful strategy (and again for the outrage brigade, I am not condoning rape on any level and are of course against it). Same is true for men throwing other men under the bus for women.

We know where gynocentrism eventually leads- social and economic collapse or the Fempocalypse¹⁹ as Karen Straughan aptly named it. Gynocentrism is by its very nature an unchecked and uncompromising fixation on female well-being at the expense of everything else. Despite what gynocentric traditionalists think²⁰, there is no balancing or containing gynocentrism. Feminism is just the logical political end result of traditionalist gynocentric double standards. With gynocentrism there is just a gradual retreat of civilisation back to uncivilised barbarism, there is no happy equilibrium point. The only thing that stands in the way of gynocentrism is men that value themselves and enforce boundaries with women and the physical environment itself. That is it.

I mean no offence to anyone in the manosphere and I respect and admire Paul, Tom and Janice. I am sure people mean well, but I cannot sit back and keep my mouth closed on this any further. The axiom in the manosphere that men are inherently biologically disposable and women are inherently more valuable because of having a uterus, is the wheel of learned helplessness that the manosphere has to recognise as such and walk away from. It is holding the manosphere back. Men are not destined to throw other men under the bus for women.

We need a paradigm shift in our understanding of gynocentrism. To quote Mark Twain: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”²¹A quote that ideologues of all stripes will never understand. Question everything guys (I do). Our understanding of gynocentrism is just in its infancy and we know less than we think we do.

References:

With this ring I thee adopt

September 10, 2019July 14, 2023 / gynocentrism / Leave a comment

The following excerpts are from Esther Vilar’s profoundly insightful volume The Polygamous Sex (1976). In this little-known work she poses the theory that women mold husbands into a father figures, protectors and providers to whom they play the role of pampered child. Vilar points out that the childish qualities arousing protective instincts in men are the opposite qualities of those that attract sexual arousal, thus leaving men in a peculiar, dissonant position of having an intimate partner who is both burdensome child and sexual partner, an unacceptable pairing which leads ultimately to a deterioration in the relationship. Vilar points out that women work feverishly to establish this relational dynamic, and asks; what does it profit a woman to lose a lover and gain a father? – PW.

____________________________

THE POWER OF THE WEAKER PARTNER

The fact that women are never seen carrying heavy burdens, lifting or pushing weights, helps to advertise their muscle weakness. When they weep easily, at the slightest provocation, their tears remind their onlookers of their weaker nerves. By enveloping themselves in fine fabrics and by means of make-up, they can make themselves look fragile to the point of imminent physical breakdown. It is not so long since this kind of comedy was incomplete without simulated fainting fits.

Women also prefer to be seen in the company of taller, older men; it underlines their simulated vulnerability. It all depends on exaggerating to the limit the existing physical difference between protector and protégé. The wife’s greater physical resilience is her secret; by the time it becomes obvious, her provider is dead. In the USA, for instance, the widow survives her spouse on the average by eleven years.

‘WITH THIS RING I THEE ADOPT!’

Compared with a child of one’s own, which one protects automatically, a woman makes a somewhat inadequate object of one’s protective instinct. When a man takes her on as his charge, he does it not instinctively but consciously, by persuading himself that here is a helpless creature who needs him. Every woman is therefore in competition with every other inadequate (non-instinctual) protégé. Orphans, the sick, the old, the mentally disabled, the poor, young pups and stray cats are basically all much more in need of protection than women. How to distract a man’s attention from all these potential competitors and concentrate it exclusively upon the woman seeking to arouse his latent protective instinct is therefore a major problem.

This is not as hard as it seems at first: most people practice altruistic love for a reward of some kind, as we have said — cash, prestige, companionship, eternal life. Women have a interesting reward to offer for the protection they seek: they are the only kind of inadequate protégé that is in a position to satisfy a man’s other social instinct — his sex drive. From the man’s point of view, this is the prize reward of them all.

But a woman seeking protection primarily can never be an adequate sex partner because she lacks one prerequisite for that: intellectual equality. But since most men hardly ever meet ideal sex partners — feminine women who are nevertheless as intelligent as men — the man really has no choice. If he is not to be empty handed, he has to settle for altruistic love for a pseudo-child, and for rational love instead of sexual love. He compromises on a concoction: part ward, part sex mate, part child, part woman. “She may not be the love of my dreams,” he thinks, “but I can still take her to bed — and besides, she needs me.” To be his child, the woman doesn’t resemble him enough — but she is weaker than he, physically and mentally. To be his ideal sex partner, she is not sufficiently on a par with him intellectually — however, she looks sufficiently different from him to be attractive.

In other words, rather than leave both of his social instincts unsatisfied a man will put up with playing the father to an adult who occasionally lets him have her body for sexual purposes. Since the average man cannot find the woman who will be a true marriage partner at all, he accepts one of many being offered for adoption by her parents, and in a grandiose ceremony vows to take her natural father’s place in providing for her henceforth. If the priest or registrar were to ask him whether he was prepared to “take this woman” as his child, he might not even notice. When the girl in white with the bouquet says “Yes”, the man knows perfectly well that he has adopted her, “for better or for worse”: “the child” will henceforth bear her new father’s name and live on his money.

To keep him from having any ideas about his search for a woman, she also plays the lover from time to time. After the birth of the first child — her ideal protégé, and his as well — the power of “the adopted daughter” is so well established that she runs little risk of losing the adoptive father to a real woman. The role of sex partner, originally used as bait, tends to be neglected at this point. Soon the day will come when only the presence of their children will remind the couple that, once upon a time, they used to sleep together.

THE POWER OF THE COLDER PARTNER

Once a woman has opted for the role of the child (instead of lover) the next step is predetermined. A child must not show too great an interest in sex, on pain of losing credibility and a child’s privileges. A woman who values her status as protégé, therefore, must keep her sex drive under control. She must be in a position to make conscious use of her sexuality for her purposes i.e. to win a man who appears suited to play her father, rather than a man who excites and confuses her senses and her mind. And she must be able to refuse herself to her intended protector until he adopts her or at least commits himself clearly to such an intention. To see primarily the sex partner in a man is the end of her power over him. It means losing the motive of making him her protector — what good is a lover restrained by protective feelings? — and being quite as dependent on him, sexually, as he is on her.

To stay stupid is, as we have said, a piece of cake; it costs no effort at all. To stay cold, on the other hand, requires considerable self-discipline — but women evidently find that it pays, just the same. Not only are men and women born with the same mental endowment, the same instinct of self-preservation and caring for their brood, but they also inherit the same predisposition to an active sex life. But sexual cravings can be conditioned: nuns and priests are good examples of that. Only nuns, being women, typically begin their training much earlier than their male counterparts, which is why we hear of far fewer missteps and scandals among them.

The rest of womankind is under no constraint to practice such total self-control. On the contrary, total frigidity would hamper them and it might lead to extremes such as refusing sex altogether, even as bait for attracting a protector. How easily the conditioning of the sex drive can lead to frigidity is revealed by a recent opinion poll taken among thousands of Italian women of every social class (Doxa, Rome 1974). Queried about their sexual attitudes, 36% of these women between the ages of twenty and fifty expressed a total lack of interest in marital sex; in fact, they said they would prefer giving it up altogether. So high a degree of sexual frigidity is excessive and rather disruptive. What matters is only to be the more frigid of the two partners — because the power is always in the hands of the colder sex partner.

FATHERS ARE POWERLESS

Children don’t love their parents; they are merely attached to them: they need them, and sometimes they even like them. When father and mother have the knack of clothing their instinctive and essentially self-gratifying nurturing of their brood in the image of self-sacrificial devotion, they may enjoy as a fringe benefit the child’s guilt and gratitude, as well. But this is not love, nor should it be: if children returned the love of their parents in full measure, life would come to a standstill, because they would never want to leave home. Children by and large tend to leave their parents at the earliest possible opportunity, to go looking for their own love objects (protégé). Many never return home, or do so only out of a sense of duty.

Children can feel real love for their parents only as they gradually become old and helpless. When physical debility, intellectual inferiority, and resemblance characterize the parent, it becomes possible for the grown son to love his father as a genuine protégé. At this point, however, the father’s love has come to an end. Between protector and protégé there is always only one who loves: always the protector. The protégé accepts whoever will be his provider. If another, better provider comes along, he will be accepted, without any great emotional investment; the most to be expected is a certain loyalty. For what is involved is only the protégé’s instinct of self-preservation, a necessarily asocial instinct. If this were fixated upon a specific individual and that individual perished, so would the protégé.

A man who marries a woman inferior to himself i.e. “adopts” her must expect that she cannot feel anything for him but liking and gratitude. A woman is better off than a child, after all; if necessary, she can take care of herself, like any man. That she nevertheless allows her husband to pay all the bills is a personal concession that can be retracted at any time. She is entitled, therefore, to high expectations: everything done for her must be first-rate, otherwise she may engage another protector or else, depending upon circumstances, even decide to take care of herself. Compared with the real father, a wife’s “adopted father” has no hope of becoming his pseudo-child’s protégé in his old age, either. The most he can hope for is the status of an inadequate or pseudo-protégé i.e. if he is lucky, he may come to enjoy the woman’s altruistic love, her charity.

The woman even gets a reward: she inherits his property, his insurance, his pension rights, so that he can go on providing for her after his death, the death she is statistically prepared to survive for, on the average, six years, plus the number of years she is younger than he is.

Turning to the man’s role for a moment, one might suppose that a protector, armed with material power over his dependent, is in a position to blackmail her. But that is precisely what he can never do. If he were capable of it, he would never have undertaken the charge in the first place. Who really enjoys working for someone else’s benefit? But the nurturing instinct is so powerful a drive that there is no evading its power. Not even women have as yet succeeded in modifying it. But for them it is so much less onerous to satisfy their brood-hatching instincts. Even if the woman is the partner who originally wanted the child — the man already had his child, in the person of his wife — it is always the man who will be responsible for its care and feeding. The nurturing instinct is polyvalent i.e. a man can have more than one “young charge” under his wing.

When the first real “protégé” for both is born, the wife merely advances to the position of eldest daughter. A woman who bears children therefore has a double advantage: she satisfies her own nurturing instinct and simultaneously strengthens the foundations of her own security. As the mother of authentic protégés she must be provided for, even if she ceases to seem quite as helpless and appealing as her role ideally calls for.

The power of the child over his parents — that of the biologically weaker over the stronger — is a law of nature. Without such power, they would starve, being unable to take care of themselves. That parents will dash into a burning house or hurl themselves into a raging flood to save their young is a matter of course. That men go to war for their women is also considered a matter of course. A man who must be a father to his wife is powerless, where she is concerned.

THE ‘WEAKER SEX’ HOLDS ALL THE ACES

The biological power structure rests on two instincts: sex, and caring for the brood. Whoever needs, for the satisfaction of one or both of these instincts, a particular individual, loses his independence to that individual. To love is to become enslaved. Contrariwise, whoever is loved has the lover in his power. Thus, power equals the ability to make oneself the object of another person’s love. Only the human female is in a position, as we have seen, to make herself the object of the male sex drive without becoming equally dependent on the male for instinctual satisfaction. She does not need the man to satisfy her sex drive; she has it under firm control, as bait or weapon in the sexual power struggle. Sex, to the woman, is too valuable, as it were, to be wasted on mere self-indulgence. So if it is a question of one sex dominating the other, it can never be the male who dominates, but the female.

“The first instance of social oppression,” runs a famous statement by Friedrich Engels, patron and coauthor of Karl Marx, “is the oppression of woman by man.” Engels is confusing force with power. Like so many Leftists after him, Engels injected metaphorically a concept of power structures resting on force into the sex war, where it does not apply. Only because a man is physically stronger and able to earn money, Engels believed that this gives the man power over the woman. However physical force may be helpful in oppressing a social class — it is no way to win control over the other sex.

The potential oppressor is never the stronger partner, but always the more helpless one; the potential ruler is never the one driven by desire, but the desired. If it is true that women are physically and mentally the weaker sex, and that they are more desired by men than desirous, then “the first social oppression” is the oppression of men by women, not the other way around. The woman usually begins to suffer long after the man has been miserable for a long time.

Female power is the foundation of all other power structures. Social power systems that do not rest directly on instinct can never be more than superstructures. Their leaders can rule only in areas of no special value to sex partners and protégés. A system that disregards the power of the really powerful sex is doomed from the outset: it cannot gain adherents. It is by the power of the dominant sex that all systems function at all. Without the consent of women, there could have been no fascism, no imperialism, no Inquisition. Men could not have become the tools of such systems, had they not been ruled by women. Only a person attached and subservient to another through his basic social instincts — a man with a family to support, typically — can be sucked into the treadmill of such a secondary system and be driven to commit acts of hypocrisy, terror, and treason. The power of woman is the root of force in others.

Church fathers, politicians, and dictators know this unwritten law very well. A ruler’s most important political move is courting women and talking their language. He knows that once he has the women with him, he will get the men automatically. As long as the Church backs up woman as man’s protégé, she can easily induce him to back up the Church by letting it teach his children a faith in invisible beings that guarantees the continuance of the Church in power. One hand washes the other. As long as politicians promise special social measures for women, they can keep military service and a higher pension age for men with a good conscience. As long as dictators do not press women into army service, they can send male recruits by the thousands into battle.

The Church did not really come into power until after it had set up woman — in the person of the Virgin Mary— as an object of worship, and where the cult of Mary is still intact, the Church is still in power. Jesus himself passed up his opportunity to win over the women. He once said to his mother: “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” and the misogynist Apostle Paul did no better in his time. Only when the female as protégé was raised to an institution did Christianity win a massive following, at last.

It is therefore entirely possible that the great social revolutionaries invented “the oppressed woman” for tactical reasons and despite their better knowledge. Did we say that Engels had confused power with force? Perhaps it was the other way around: suppose he had recognized the real power of women, and made a deliberate bid for it, to secure the victory for his side? It would certainly be odd for men like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao — all of whom knew the life of the working class better than anyone — to have believed seriously that the worker’s wife was worse off than the worker himself. They surely knew that, poverty and too many kids notwithstanding, the worker’s wife was somewhat better off even under the inhuman conditions of proletarian life at the outset of the industrial revolution. When they and other radicals sought to improve the lot of the working man, they were good enough politicians to appeal to the working man’s wife and exalt her cause as top priority. Clever, legitimate tactics — but what confusion they sowed in the heads of their followers!

Adolph Hitler also adopted such tactics, though with a somewhat different emphasis. Without the support of “the German Woman” — that self-consciously Teutonic Female, his own creation — he would never have made it to the top, the position from which he could instigate his great blood bath. Since the really powerful elements were not men, Hitler could openly advocate his program: war against neighboring countries and the persecution of another “race” — while the women cheered him on, as we know.

No one is saying that women want war more than men do — whoever wants war? — but they are less opposed to it. Because they don’t as a rule expect to be sent to the front, war means less of a risk to them personally; because they are not given to thinking beyond their noses, they are much slower to realize all the deadly consequences of war. Who would ever have foreseen, in any case, that even a democratic regime like the British would drop bombs on defenseless civilians, massacring over half a million women and children — and gratuitously, as it turned out, since the bombardment of cities made little difference; it was only the systematic destruction of industrial installations that helped to end the war.

But the bombers were flown by men, so we may conclude that the women had no great compunctions about that. The pre-war suffragettes who fought for the vote had omitted to fight for women’s participation in the dirty work of war. Although women are nominally as responsible for wars as men, at least where they have the vote, the majority of women by no means regard themselves as armchair soldiers, but rather as pacifists. In post-war Germany not one of the women who lived for years on the pay of a concentration camp guard — all of whom were murderers — ever went on trial.

Apart from the few young girls who get involved in leftist militancy or the like, the great masses of women have not, so far, knowingly risked anything for their society. Even the women soldiers of the Israeli Army figured only on the sidelines of the Six-Day as well as the Yom Kippur War. Where the shooting is, it’s always the men. Who dies in war is decided by the more powerful sex: woman.

ADOPTION AND INCEST

Men who are strongly motivated in their choice of a partner by their nurturing instinct, and turn to predominately childlike women who are considerably younger, less intelligent, smaller and weaker than they —; necessarily have to satisfy their sex instinct with their protégé. To have sex with someone you regard as your child is incest. Not that they are aware of it as incest. It is not easy to realize that a man is drawn to a woman by his nurturing instinct — the sex factor is what catches the eye. But all those altruistic feelings he has for her, like wanting to take care of her, defend her, work for her, fight for her, these are the feelings of a father for his child, not really those of a lover for his woman.

By the time a man ‘adopts’ a woman he can hardly differentiate between the erotic and paternal strands of mixed motives involved. With luck, he has had some experience with the erotic feelings; the paternal, protective emotions are something new. When he feels this new way for a woman for the first time and compares it with his earlier attitudes, he is struck by the difference: he had no desire to sacrifice himself to his earlier loves. It must be proof positive that this, at long last, is real love, the great love for which he has been waiting all his life. Here is the ‘woman to marry’ in contrast to others whom he comes to think of as ‘good in bed’. It is only later on, when he has become a father in fact, that he can identify what he felt for his bride as being similar to what he now feels for his child. For the first time he is in a position to judge what proportion of his original interest in her was, strictly speaking, paternal rather than sexual.

A man with a child-wife knows that something is not quite as it should be, but he can’t quite put his finger on it. He somehow feels though he has no right to perform the act of love with her, as though it were an imposition he ought to spare her. Still, he finds himself doing this ‘improper’ thing to her, but always with a guilty conscience! He also can’t shake off the feeling that she is somehow doing him a big favor every time she puts up with it, and that he can never do enough, soon enough, to show his appreciation.

In days of yore, when women still married as virgins, and difference in age between bride and groom was also usually far more pronounced than it is nowadays, the link between marital adoption and incest was especially evident: the bridegroom had to violate his ward right after the ceremony. Thanks to the new sex morality, men can at least make a more gradual transition. Marriage, formerly the legal pre-requisite for incest, is becoming more and more a form of restitution.

As a father in spite of himself, the man has no choice but to break through the incest barrier between himself and his child-wife. It helps a little that she is only a pseudo-child with whom he commits legally sanctioned pseudo-incest only. But all that manipulation of basic instincts cannot fail to have damaging consequences.

We learn from the psychoanalysts to what degree men have begun to shake off the inhibition against incest and to enjoy real incest at least in their day-dreams: fathers, we are told, indulge in sexual fantasies about their growing daughters every day of the week. The same therapists, ever on the alert against all kinds of complexes, in these cases are not all inclined to liberate men from such fantasies. Their only worry here is to ward off any guilt feelings that might develop, so they never tire of assuring the ‘patient’ how very normal it all is.

A man who concentrates his sex and breeding instincts on the same woman, and has consequently attached himself to a markedly infantile specimen, is virtually courting a schizophrenic breakdown. He is likely to swing constantly from adoring his chosen mate to cursing her, raping her, falling at her feet, beating her, then offering to die for her. She will wonder at his eccentricity, but it cannot be otherwise. Since the two instincts involved are basically incompatible, a man who keeps trying to combine them is bound to fall from one extreme to the other.

Common sense will eventually drive a man to seek an escape from such an incestuous bond, landing him in either polygamy or prudery. The less sensible continue to live in incest. The dangerous lure of forbidden fruit and its pleasures become a permanent ingredient of their sex lives.

What began as making a virtue out of necessity ends as an addiction and an established perversion. Once a man is sexually fixated on Lolita, he is likely to find the idea of sanctioned sex with a grown woman boring. A man driven by a particularly strong paternal instinct to marry an especially infantile woman is likely to find such an adjustment extremely hard to make. He is likely to be the same man who asks for under age girls in a house of assignation, even at an advanced age. What he has come to relish most of all about the activity is the violation of the taboo.

THE POLYGAMOUS MAN WRONGS ONLY OTHER MEN

Women complain that men regard them as mere sex objects. This sounds like wishful thinking! In actuality, a man needs considerable imagination to see a sex object in his mate. Most women deliberately choose men to whom they feel inferior (‘I must have a man I can look up to,’ is the slogan). An inferior is no sex object, but a protégé — a ‘child’. To see a person as a sex object, we need to be looking at someone who is physically the opposite, but intellectually our equal. Most women tend to be only the physical opposite of their partner. Stupidity is not a sex-specific trait: it is the opposite, not of masculinity, but of intelligence. It makes a woman not more feminine, as many believe, but more childish.

An inferior appeals, not to her partner’s sex drive, but to his paternal instinct, thus driving him to polygamy: sex with the pseudo-child makes for a guilty conscience. He looks for another sex partner, again suffers pangs of conscience if the new partner is inferior, roams further afield to find a third, and so on. Homosexual men probably are often men who have resigned themselves to the fact that their long search for an equal sex partner among women has been in vain. They prefer equality with a partner of the same sex, rather than intellectual inferiority i.e. sex with a childish person.

Although the average polygamist actually wrongs only another man, not his wife, he is rarely aware of this: a woman who regards her husband as her father cannot be the victim of sexual infidelity. For an ‘adoptee’ her partner is not primarily the lover, so she is jealous only when she is threatened with losing the provider in him. She would of course prefer to be her husband’s ‘only child’, but once there is a ‘sister’, she will settle for at least not having to take second place. As long as the goodies are fairly shared, and the ‘father’ is sufficiently well-off to provide for more than one ‘child’, she does not care, basically, what he does with the others.

WOMEN WANT ALTRUISTIC LOVE

Women are free to choose: they can take a man as a father or as a lover; they can arouse his compassion or his desire. As long as women play the role of children, they clearly prefer sympathy. As long as they choose to be the weaker, younger, less intelligent partner in every relationship, i.e., as long as they insist on choosing male superiors they are opting openly for altruistic love.

Women sow confusion in men’s minds: they look like adults but they behave like children; they demand passion but themselves stay cool; they talk of tenderness, meaning protection. Women are to blame when both sexes have to go without adult egalitarian love — they renounce it voluntarily, and the man has to make do with what they call love. ‘True love puts the partner’s happiness first’, is the female definition of love. The man tries to adhere to it. But every time he feels for a woman what she expects of him — putting her happiness first — he is not happy with her; every time he is happy with a woman, he has putting himself first.

We have seen that women manipulate men’s instincts with ease. A woman need only be somewhat weaker, colder, and less intelligent than the man and presto, she has a provider for life. But is it right to do something just because it is easy? Is an action justified just because it results in one’s advantage?

We don’t have to do everything we can do, because we can do it. Civilized people do not hurt animals, even though they could. When will women become civilized enough to stop mistreating men? When will they cease from training their lovers to become providers, merely because they have the power to do so?

As long as they continue as they are, men have no alternative to polygamy. They need not torment themselves with guilt because of it. As long as women insist on simulating children, as long as they want protection whether they need it or not, men have a right to more than one woman at a time. They have a right to keep looking for a real woman, among all the little girls they encounter in the course of their lives, until they actually find one. In any case, they alone are the real victims of polygamy. Whether or not they want to victimize themselves thus, is ultimately for them to decide.
_______________________

Sexual feudalism

August 31, 2019December 15, 2024 / Peter Wright / Leave a comment

Sexual feudalism refers to the sex-relations model of gynocentric culture, whereby men are expected to serve women who in turn are viewed as men’s moral and social superiors. The model is based on the dominant social system in medieval Europe in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, with vassals being tenants in service to the nobles, and peasants (villeins or serfs) obliged to live on their lord’s land and give him homage, labour, and a share of their produce.

C.S. Lewis referred to the development of this gender relations model as “the feudalisation of love,” making the observation that it has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched. He observed that European society has moved essentially from a social feudalism, involving a contractual arrangement between a feudal lord and his vassal, to a sexual feudalism involving a comparable contract between men and women as symbolized in the act of a man going down on one knee to propose marriage.^[1]

Historical antecedents

Historical antecedents of the phrase ‘sexual feudalism’ appear in literature, each referring to a power imbalance between the sexes:

Camille Paglia (1990):

“…a sexual feudalism of master-slave relationships.”^[2]

Marjolijn Februari (2011):

“Actually it’s arguing for a dictatorship, the dictatorship of the vagina, a kind of sexual feudalism which you wouldn’t want our international relations to be governed by in the future… those women aren’t the least concerned about war and peace as a matter of principle; all they’re concerned about is securing their own interests.”^[3]

Adam Kostakis (2011):

“It would not be inappropriate to call such a system sexual feudalism, and every time I read a feminist article, this is the impression that I get: that they aim to construct a new aristocracy, comprised only of women, while men stand at the gate, till in the fields, fight in their armies, and grovel at their feet for starvation wages. All feminist innovation and legislation creates new rights for women and new duties for men; thus it tends towards the creation of a male underclass, the accomplishment of which will be the first step towards the extermination of men.” “But what are the women’s rights advocated today? The right to confiscate men’s money, the right to commit parental alienation, the right to commit paternity fraud, the right to equal pay for less work, the right to pay a lower tax rate, the right to mutilate men, the right to confiscate sperm, the right to murder children, the right to not be disagreed with, the right to reproductive choice and the right to make that choice for men as well. In an interesting legal paradox, some have advocated – with success – that women should have the right to not be punished for crimes at all. The eventual outcome of this is a kind of sexual feudalism, where women rule arbitrarily, and men are held in bondage, with fewer rights and far more obligations.”^[4]

In men’s rights discourse

Peter Wright has expanded on the phrase as relevant to men’s human rights discourse, describing the practice of ‘sexual feudalism’ as rooted in chivalry and courtly love; practices which structured relations between men and women along the lines of a feudal relationship between a Lord and his attending vassals and peasants.^[5]Evidence shows that within the emergent medieval practices of romantic chivalry and courtly love, aristocratic women came to be addressed as Midons (literally ‘my lord’) by men who acted as both liegemen and humble servants. Over a period of centuries the practice of sexual feudalism, encoded in the conventions of chivalry and romantic love culture, spread initially from aristocratic circles to infuse mass culture,^[6] affecting all class strata.

As evidence of the development of this model, Wright^[7] has cited the following scholarly sources:

“In the eleventh century the worship of the Virgin Mary became widely popular; the reverence bestowed upon the Virgin was extended to the female sex in general, and as a vassal owed obedience to his feudal overlord, so did he owe service and devotion to his lady… Thus there was a service of love as there was a service of vassalage, and the lover stood to his lady in a position analogous to that of the vassal to his overlord. He attained this position only by stages; “there are four stages in love: the first is that of aspirant (fegnedor), the second that of suppliant (precador), the third that of recognised suitor (entendedor) and the fourth that of accepted lover (drut).” The lover was formally installed as such by the lady, took an oath of fidelity to her and received a kiss to seal it, a ring or some other personal possession.”^[8]

“The Aristocracy and Church developed the doctrine of the superiority of women, that adoration which gathered round both the persons both of the Virgin in heaven and the lady upon earth, and which handed down to the modern world the ideal of chivalry. The cult of the Virgin and the cult of chivalry grew together, and continually reacted upon one another… The cult of the lady was the mundane counterpart of the cult of the Virgin and it was the invention of the medieval aristocracy. In chivalry the romantic worship of a woman was as necessary a quality of the perfect knight as was the worship of God… It is obvious that the theory which regarded the worship of a lady as next to that of God and conceived of her as the mainspring of brave deeds, a creature half romantic, half divine, must have done something to counterbalance the dogma of subjection. The process of placing women upon a pedestal had begun, and whatever we may think of the ultimate value of such an elevation (for few human beings are suited to the part of Stylites, whether ascetic or romantic) it was at least better than placing them, as the Fathers of the Church had inclined to do, in the bottomless pit.”^[9]

“Everyone has heard of courtly love, and everyone knows it appeared quite suddenly at the end of the eleventh century at Languedoc. The sentiment, of course, is love, but love of a highly specialized sort, whose characteristics may be enumerated as Humility, Courtesy, and the Religion of Love. The lover is always abject. Obedience to his lady’s lightest wish, however whimsical, and silent acquiescence in her rebukes, however unjust, are the only virtues he dares to claim. Here is a service of love closely modelled on the service which a feudal vassal owes to his lord. The lover is the lady’s ‘man’. He addresses her as midons, which etymologically represents not ‘my lady’ but ‘my lord’. The whole attitude has been rightly described as ‘a feudalisation of love’. This solemn amatory ritual is felt to be part and parcel of the courtly life.” ^[10]

“Medieval courtly love, closely bound to the dominant values of feudalism and the Church, allowed in a special way for the expression of sexual love by women… if courtly love were to define itself as a noble phenomenon, it had to attribute an essential freedom to the relation between lovers. Hence, it metaphorically extended the social relation of vassalage to the love relationship, a “conceit” that Maurice Valency rightly called “the shaping principle of the whole design” of courtly love… Thus, in Medieval romances, a parley typically followed a declaration of love until love freely proffered was freely returned. A kiss (like the kiss of homage) sealed the pledge, rings were exchanged, and the knight entered the love service of his lady. Representing love along the lines of vassalage had several liberating implications for aristocratic women. Most fundamental, ideas of homage and mutuality entered the notion of heterosexual relations along with the idea of freedom. As symbolized on shields and other illustrations that place the knight in the ritual attitude of commendation, kneeling before his lady with his hands folded between hers, homage signified male service, not domination or subordination of the lady, and it signified fidelity, constancy in that service.”^[11]

“William IX calls his lady midons, which I have translated as ‘my Lord’. This midons is, as Pound said, ‘inexplicable’: it is used by the troubadours, of their ladies, and in the later troubadours we find it everywhere–Bernart de Ventadorn used it twenty-three times. Its etymology is (?mi-) dominus, ‘my master, lord’, but since it is used only of women – its pronoun is ‘she’ – glossarists have difficulty assigning it a gender. Though Mary Hackett has shown that it was not felt to mean on the primary level ‘my quasi-feudal lord’ by the troubadours who used it, these men knew their Latin and must have been aware of its origins and peculiarity; in fact it was clearly their collective emotions and expectations that drew what amounts to a metaphor from the area of lordship, just as it is the collective metaphor-making process that establishes ‘baby’ as a term for a girlfriend and that creates and transforms language constantly. In the same way, knowing that Dominus was the standard term for God, and that don, ‘lord’, was also used for God, they must also have felt some connection with religious adoration. William IX echoes the scriptures when he says

Every joy must bow down before her
and every pride obey Midons…
No one can find a finer lady,
nor eyes see, nor mouth speak of…

The incantatory fifth stanza of this song enumerates powers that were evoked every day in the Virgin and the saints. William IX is, metaphorically, his lady’s feudal vassal as well as her worshipper. So that there are three structures in parallel: the feudal, the courtly-love, and the religious; the psychological structure of each followed that of the others, so that it was difficult to think of any of them without transferring the feelings that belonged to the others. The lady was to lover as God to man, and as feudal lord to vassal; and feudal lord to vassal was as God to man. Our socio-economically minded age would say that the forms of feudal society must have shaped relationships in the other two spheres, and it is as likely that aesthetics and ethics moulded economics and vice versa. Of course, courtly love was not ‘religious’ in the sense of being part of any Christian ethic; it was a religion in its psychology. The courtly lover did not think of his lady as the Church thought of her, but as the Church thought of God.”^[12]

“Since the social structure of the Middle Ages was mainly feudal and hierarchical, men were expected to serve their lords while women were required to show fidelity. In courtly love this was transformed into meaning that the lover would serve his lady and that she would be faithful to him. Courtly love is often said to have placed women on a pedestal and to have made men into knights whose heroic lives would henceforth belong to elevated ladies. The idea arises from the fact that men frequently used the language of chivalry to express their servile relationship to whatever woman they loved, and sometimes they described her as a divinity toward which they might aspire but could never hope to equal… that he must prove himself worthy of her and so advance upward, step by step, toward a culminating union at her level; that everything noble and virtuous, everything that makes life worth living, proceeds from women, who are even described as the source of goodness itself. But though the lady now discourses with her lover, the men frequently cast themselves into the typical posture of fin’amors. On their knees, hands clasped, they beg the beloved to accept their love, their life, their service, and to do with them as she pleases.”^[13]

“The extent of the penetration of feudal thought into the conception and expression of courtly love has been apparent to all modern investigators: the poet-lover portrays himself as a vassel (om), the lady is treated as a feudal lord and often addressed in masculine form (midons/sidons), and contracts (conven), reward (guizardon), and other aspects of loyal and humble service are constantly under discussion. In a profound sense, courtly love is quintessentially feudal (Riquer 77-96), for it imitates the primary hierarchical principles increasingly employed to control as well as to justify hegemonic desire in the second feudal age.”^[14]

“The troubadours lived and functioned within a society based on feudalism. Certain ones were themselves feudal lords; others were liegemen dependent on such lords for their sustinence. The troubadours who were members of the clergy were also actively involved in this feudal society. It is only natural that their literature reflect some traits of the age in which it was created. Scholars soon saw striking parallels between feudalistic practices and certain tenets of Courtly Love. The comparisons lie in certain resemblances shared by vassalage and the courtly “love service.” Fundamental to both was the concept of obedience. As a vassal, the liegeman swore obedience to his lord. As a courtly lover, the poet chose a lady to whom he was required to swear obedience. Humility and obedience were two concepts familiar to medieval man, active components of his Weltanschauung. Critics, such as Erich Kohler, have found them exhibited in both the life and literature of that time.

The entire concept of love-service was patterned after the vassal’s oath to serve his lord with loyalty, tenacity, and courage. These same virtues were demanded of the poet. Like the liegeman vis-a-vis his sovereign, the poet approached his lady with fear and respect. Submitted to her, obedient to her will, he awaited a fief or honor as did the vassal. His compensation took many forms: the pleasure of his lady’s company in her chamber or in the garden; an avowal of her love; a secret meeting; a kiss or even le surplus, complete unity. Like the lord, the woman who was venerated and served was expected to reward her faithful and humble servant. Her failure to do so was considered a breach of “contract.” Most critics who support the theory that the courtly-love-service was formed by assimilation to the feudal service inherent in vassalage, credit Guillaume IX with its creation. However, the universality of these parallels cannot be doubted:

The posture of the true lover is so familiar that we have come to accept it as the hallmark. A seal attributed to Cononde Bethune represents it perfectly. This depicts in an oval cartouche, an armed knight on his knees before a lady. His body is shrouded in a mail hauberk. His head is completely concealed in his helmet. He wears spurs but no sword. The lady stands at arms length, chastely robed, her regular nonedescript features framed in long braids, presumably blonde, and between her outstretched palms the knight’s hands are placed in the formal gesture of homage. Within the cartouche, in the space above the helmet of the kneeling knight is inscribed a single word: MERCI.

The similarities between courtly service and vassalage are indeed striking. Although of a more refined character than an ordinary vassal, the poet-lover is portrayed as his lady’s liegeman, involved in the ceremony of homage and pictured at the moment of the immixtio manuum. His reward for faithful service will doubtlessly include the osculum.

The influence of feudalism upon courtly love was, in my opinion, twofold: it provided the poets with a well-organized system of service after which they might pattern their own; it furnished them with a highly developed vocabulary centered around the service owed by a vassal to a lord. Feudalistic vocabulary was comprised of certain basic terminology indicative of the ties which legally bound a man to his lord in times of peace and war.^[15]

Love service

The male role within the structure of sexual feudalism is sometimes referred to as ‘love service’ which is described as a ritualized form of male love-devotion toward women, especially noble women, that was popularized in the Middle Ages.^[16]^[17]^[18]

The practice of love service appeared first in Medieval Europe and was modeled on a combination of feudalistic class distinctions, courtly love tenets, and gendered aspects of the chivalric class code regarding ‘respectful’ treatment of women.^[19]^[20]

Love service had certain resemblances with vassalage, especially the concept of obedience. According to Sandra R Alfonsi the entire concept of love-service was patterned after the vassal’s oath to serve his Lord with loyalty, tenacity, and courage. These same virtues were demanded of the male supplicant. Like the liegeman vis-a-vis his sovereign, the male approached his lady with fear and respect, submitted obediently to her and awaited a fief or in this case an honor of reception as did the vassal.^[21]

The vocabulary of love service borrowed some terminology from the vocabulary of feudalism indicative of the ties between a man to his Lord. Examples are servitium(service), dominus (denoting the feudal Lord, or Lady), homo ligius (addressing the Lord’s liegeman or ‘my man’), homage (duty toward Lord), and honor (honoring gestures). The men were sometimes referred to as domnei or donnoi, meaning an attitude of chivalrous devotion of a knight to his Lady based in servitude and duty.^[22]

References

C.S. Lewis, 2013, p. 2 The allegory of love, p.2., Cambridge University Press (1936).
Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae, Yale University Press, 10 Sep 1990
Maxim Februari, The Book Club, Hachette UK, 1 Apr 2010
Adam Kostakis, Gynocentrism Theory Lectures, Google 2010
Peter Wright, The Sexual Relations Contract, published at Gynocentrism And Its Cultural Origins (2013).
Peter Wright, The evolution of gynocentrism via romance writings, in Gynocentrism: From Feudalism To The Modern Disney Princess, Academic Century Press (2014).
Peter Wright, The Sexual Relations Contract, published at Gynocentrism And Its Cultural Origins (2013).
Henry John Chaytor, The Troubadours, The University Press (1912)
C.G. Crump, Legacy of the Middle Ages, Clarendon Press (1951)
C.S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love, Oxford University Press (1936)
Joan Kelly, Did Women have a Renaissance?, in Women, History, and Theory: The Essays of Joan Kelly, University of Chicago Press (1986).
Peter Makin, Provence and Pound, University of California Press (1978).
Irving Singer, Love: Courtly and Romantic, MIT Press (2009).
Gerald A. Bond, A Handbook of the Troubadours, University of California Press (1995).
Sandra R Alfonsi, Masculine Submission in Troubadour Lyric, P. Lang (1986).
Margaret Schaus, Women and Gender in Medieval Europe: An Encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis, 2006
Chivalry and Love Service, in Judith M. Bennett, Ruth Mazo Karras, The Oxford Handbook of Women and Gender in Medieval Europe, Oxford University Press, 2013
Sandra R Alfonsi, Masculine Submission in Troubadour Lyric (American University Studies), Peter Lang Publishing, 1986
James A. Schultz, Courtly Love, the Love of Courtliness, and the History of Sexuality, University of Chicago Press, 2006
Chivalry and Love Service, in Judith M. Bennett, Ruth Mazo Karras, The Oxford Handbook of Women and Gender in Medieval Europe, Oxford University Press, 2013
Sandra R Alfonsi, Masculine Submission in Troubadour Lyric (American University Studies), Peter Lang Publishing, 1986
Sandra R Alfonsi, Masculine Submission in Troubadour Lyric (American University Studies), Peter Lang Publishing, 1986

Trobairitz Castelloza speaks out against sexual feudalism & gender inequality

August 30, 2019September 1, 2019 / rtbavfm / Leave a comment

By Douglass Galbi

Good lady, you may burn or hang him
or do anything you happen to desire,
for there’s nothing that he can refuse you,
as such you have him without any limits. [1]

Men have long been sexually disadvantaged. While men’s structural disadvantages are scarcely acknowledged within gynocentric society, a small number of medieval women writers courageously advocated for men. In Occitania early in the thirteenth century, the extraordinary trobairitz Lady Castelloza spoke out boldly against gender inequality in love and men having the status of serfs in sexual feudalism.

And if she tells you a high mountain is a plain,
agree with her,
and be content with both the good and ill she sends;
that way you’ll be loved.

{ e s’ela.us ditz d’aut puoig que sia landa,
vos l’an crezatz,
e plassa vos lo bes e.l mals q’il manda,
c’aissi seretz amatz. } [2]

Just as is the case for many women today, many medieval women didn’t adequately support and defend men. When Giraut de Bornelh asked his lovely friend Alamanda about his love difficulties, she advised him to be totally subservient to his lady. Alamanda was a maiden to that lady. Lord Giraut apparently had lost his lady’s love by seeking sex with a woman who was not her equal, probably none other than her maiden Alamanda. But what had that lady done to him? She had lied to him at least five times before! When women speak, men should not just listen and believe. Unwillingness to question a woman led a Harvard Law professor to personal disaster. Men should not act as doormats for women or as women’s kitchen servants.

The trobairitz Maria de Ventadorn insisted to Gui d’Ussel that a woman should retain her superior position even in a love relationship with a man. Gui felt that men and women in love should be equals. But Maria wanted men to fulfill all the pleas and commands of their lady-lovers. That’s the pernicious doctrine of yes-dearism. Just say no to female supremacists!

Lady {Maria de Ventadorn}, among us they say
that when a lady wants to love,
she should honor her love on equal terms
because they are equally in love.
…
Gui d’Ussel, at the beginning, lovers
say no such thing;
instead, each one, when he wants to court,
says, with hands joined and on his knees:
“Lady, permit me to serve you honestly
as your servant man” and that’s the way she takes him.
I rightly consider him a traitor if, having given
himself as a servant, he makes himself an equal.

{ Dompna, sai dizon de mest nos
Que, pois que dompna vol amar,
Engalmen deu son drut onrar,
Pois engalmen son amoros!
…
Gui d’Uissel, ges d’aitals razos
Non son li drut al comenssar,
Anz ditz chascus, qan vol prejar,
Mans jointas e de genolos:
Dompna, voillatz qe-us serva franchamen
Cum lo vostr’om! et ella enaissi-l pren!
Eu vo-l jutge per dreich a trahitor
Si-s rend pariers e-s det per servidor. } [3]

Because of their great love for women, men are reluctant to demand that women treat them with equal human respect and dignity. Men tend toward gyno-idolatry. The man on his knees before a woman, with his hands clasped, is making a gesture of faithful subordination. She then puts her hands around his hands to complete this feudal gesture known as the immixtio mannum {intermingling of hands}. A man today who goes down on his knee to ask a woman for her hand in marriage is preparing to be a vassal to his woman-lord midons. That’s folly. That’s fine preparation for a sexless marriage. From studying Ovid the great teacher of love to modern empirical work on sexual selection, men should know that self-abasement is a losing love strategy.

Oh Love, what shall I do?
Shall we two live in strife?
The griefs that must ensue
would surely end my life.
Unless my Lady might
receive me in that place
she lies in, to embrace
and press against me tight,
her body, smooth and white.
…
Good Lady, thank you for
your love so true and fine;
I swear I love you more
than all past loves of mine.
I bow and join my hands
yielding myself to you;
the one thing you might do
is give me one sweet glance
if sometime you’ve the chance.

{ Amors, e que.m farai?
Si garrai ja ab te?
Ara cuit qu’e.n morrai
Del dezirer que.m ve,
Si.lh bela lai on jai
No m’aizis pres de se,
Qu’eu la manei e bai
Et estrenha vas me
So cors blanc, gras e le.
…
Bona domna, merce
Del vostre fin aman!
Qu’e.us pliu per bona fe
C’anc re non amei tan.
Mas jonchas, ab col cle,
Vos m’autrei e.m coman;
E si locs s’esdeve,
Vos me fatz bel semblan,
Que molt n’ai gran talan! } [4]

The medieval trobairitz Castelloza sympathized with men’s subordination in love. She loved a man who didn’t love her. A woman today in such a situation might open a dating app and enjoy a huge number of solicitations from men. Then, if necessary to boost her self-esteem, she might go for sexual flings with a few, or at least exploit traditional anti-men gender dating roles to get some free dinners. With a keen sense for social justice, Castelloza refused to live according to such female privilege:

I certainly know that it pleases me,
even though people say it’s not right
for a lady to plead her own cause with a knight,
and make long speeches all the time to him.
But whoever says this doesn’t know
that I want to implore before dying,
since in imploring I find sweet healing,
so I plead to him who gives me grave trouble.

{ Eu sai ben qu’a mi esta gen,
Si ben dison tuig que mout descove
Que dompna prec ja cavalier de se,
Ni que l tenga totz temps tam lonc pressic,
Mas cil c’o diz non sap gez ben chausir.
Qu’ieu vueil preiar ennanz que.m lais morir,
Qu’el preiar ai maing douz revenimen,
Can prec sellui don ai greu pessamen. } [5]

Castelloza recognized that, in pleading with a man for love, she was transgressing the norms of men-oppressing courtly love. When women treat men merely as dogs, women don’t experience the full gift of men’s tonic masculinity. The master dehumanizes herself in dehumanizing her man-slaves. Castelloza, in contrast, understood that a man’s love can ennoble a woman. She understood that a man can offer much to even the most privileged woman.

I’m setting a bad pattern
for other loving women,
since it’s usually men who send
messages of well-chosen words.
Yet I consider myself cured,
friend, when I implore you.
for keeping faith is how I woo.
A noble women would grow richer
if you graced her with the gift
of your embrace or your kiss.

{ Mout aurei mes mal usatge
A las autras amairitz,
C’hom sol trametre mesatge,
E motz triaz e chauzitz.
Es ieu tenc me per gerida,
Amics, a la mia fe,
Can vos prec — c’aissi.m conve;
Que plus pros n’es enriquida
S’a de vos calqu’aondansa
De baisar o de coindansa. } [6]

Men’s lack of imagination and unwillingness to protest helps to keep them in their gender prison of gynocentrism. Men rightly appreciate, admire, and love courageous, transgressive women like the trobairitz Castelloza. But men must take responsibility for winning their own liberation. A man showing loving concern about his close friend getting married isn’t enough. Men should be more daring and, like Matheolus, raise stirring voices of men’s sexed protest. Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOWs) struggled against misandry and castration culture even in the Middle Ages, and they continue to do so today. MGTOW is merely prudent personal action. To dismantle gynocentric oppression, men must recover, create, and disseminate protest poetry as potent as the medieval troubadours’ feudal songs of men’s love serfdom.

Peire, if spanning two or three years
the world were run as would please me,
I’ll tell you how with women it would be:
they would never be courted with tears,
rather, they would suffer such love-fears
that they would honor us,
and court us, rather than we, them.

{ Peire, si fos dos ans o tres
Lo segles faihz al meu plazer,
De domnas vos dic eu lo ver:
Non foran mais preyadas ges,
Ans sostengran tan greu pena
Qu’elas nos feiran tan d’onor
C’ans nos prejaran que nos lor. } [7]

* * * * *

Notes:

[1] { Bona domna, ardre.l podetz o pendre,
o far tot so que.us vengua a talen,
que res non es qu’el vos puesca defendre,
aysi l’avetz ses tot retenemen. }

Donna and Donzela, “Bona domna, tan vos ay fin coratge” ll. 17-20, Occitan text and English translation (modified insubstantially) from Bruckner, Shepard & White (1995) pp. 92-3. Here’s some meta-data about this trobairitz song. It’s a debate poem (tenso). The currently best critical edition of trobairitz / troubadour tensos is Harvey, Paterson & Radaelli (2010), but it’s expensive and not widely available. For analysis of the genre of tenso, McQueen (2015).

[2] Alamanda and Giraut de Bornelh, “S’ie.us qier conseill, bella amia Alamanda” ll. 13-16, Occitan text and English translation from Bruckner, Shepard & White (1995) pp. 42-3.

[3] Maria de Ventadorn and Gui d’Ussel, “Gui d’Ussel be.m pesa” ll. 25-8, 33-40, Occitan text and English translation (modified insubstantially) from Bruckner, Shepard & White (1995) pp. 38-41. This poem is also available in translation in Paden & Paden (2007). The immixtio manuum isn’t attested prior to 1100. West (2013) p. 211.

[4] Bernart de Ventadorn, “Pois preyatz me, senhor” ll. stanzas 4 & 6, Occitan text and English translation by W.D. Snodgrass from Kehew (2005) pp. 84-5. The Poemist offers online the full text and English translation.

[5] Na {Lady} Castelloza, “Amics, s’ie.us trobes avinen” ll. 17-24 (stanza 3), Occitan text from Paden (1981), English trans. (modified) from Paden & Paden (2007). Bruckner, Shepard & White (1995) provides a slightly different Occitan text and English translation of all of Castelloza’s songs. Butterfly Crossingsprovides an online Occitan text and English translation of the full song, with commentary. Her commentary puts forward orthodox myth in service of gynocentrism:

by virtue of being a woman she is below him socially, thus rendering her statement simultaneously true and drawing attention to the place of women in society as opposed to the artificial pedestal they sit upon in traditional Troubadour poems. Regardless of her title, class, or wealth, in love, much like in life, the woman is beneath the man and must beg his favor like Castelloza here does.

Yup, so Anne of France was beneath day-laboring men gathering stones in fields.

Much influential recent scholarship on trobairitz has been based on dominant gender delusions. A relevant critique:

Gravdal’s argument here is based on her assumption that, for the men, powerlessness is a pose, a rhetorical strategy; the male speaker adopts an abased position only to use it as a springboard to higher status and sociopolitical clout. That Castelloza’s speaker does this as well is frequently overlooked, because it is assumed that for the women, powerlessness is a reality. This assumption is not supported by the evidence for noblewomen’s sociopolitical situation in Occitania during the time of the trobairitz.

Langdon (2001) p. 40.

[6] Castelloza, “Mout avetz faich lonc estatge” ll. 21-30 (stanza 3), Occitan text from Paden (1981), English trans. (modified) from Paden & Paden (2007). Butterfly Crossings again offers the full song, along with commentary. The commentary shows orthodox academic failure of self-consciousness:

Almost smirkingly Castelloza acknowledges that her behavior sets a terrible example for all other female lovers while synchronously encouraging them to do the same. She is not apologizing as much as drawing attention to the solidarity between women who will now partake in this perhaps liberating behavior and act upon their desires as opposed to remaining within the confined roles of passive love interests.

Women unite in liberating behavior: ask men out and buy men dinner!

In Castelloza’s songs, the man she loves has neither voice nor activity. Siskin & Storme (1989) pp. 119-20. Self-centeredness is a common characteristic of women’s writing, particularly in the last few decades of literary scholarship.

[7] Peire d’Alvrnha (possibly) and Bernart de Ventadorn, “Amics Bernartz de Ventadorn,” stanza 4, Occitan text from Trobar, my English translation benefiting from that of Rosenberg, Switten & Le Vot (1998). James H. Donalson provides an online Occitan text and English translation for the full song.

Bernart de Ventadorn was one of the greatest troubadour love poets. His desire for women to experience men’s subordinate position in love is coupled with appreciation for gender equality and reciprocity in love:

The love of two good lovers lies
in pleasing and in yearning’s thrill
from which no good thing will arise
unless they match each other’s will.
The man was born an imbecile
who scolds her for her preference
or bids her do what she resents.

{ En agradar et en voler
es l’amors de dos fi?s amants;
nulha res no·i pòt pro? tener
se·l volontatz non es egals.
E cell es be? fols naturals
qui de çò que vòl la reprend
e·ilh lauza çò qu no·ilh es gent }

“Chantars no pot gaire valer,” Occitan text and English trans. (modified insubstantially) from A.Z. Foreman. For an alternate English translation, Paden & Paden (2007) pp. 74-5. While Bernart here unequally criticizes men, in an earlier stanza her criticized women whoring in loving men.

[images] (1) *Replacing the author’s original image with this paid stock image from Alamy [Peter Wright]. (2) Immixtio manuum: Feudal tenant show faithful subordination to a procurator of King James II of Majorca in Tautaval. Illumination made in 1293. Preserved as Archives Départementales de Pyrénées-Orientales 1B31.

References:

Bruckner, Matilda Tomaryn, Laurie Shepard, and Sarah White, eds. and trans. 1995. Songs of the Women Troubadours. New York: Garland.

Harvey, Ruth, Linda M. Paterson, and Anna Radaelli. 2010. The Troubadour Tensos and Partimens: a critical edition. Cambridge: Brewer.

Kehew, Robert, ed. 2005. Lark in the Morning: the Verses of the Troubadours: a bilingual edition. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.

Langdon, Alison. 2001. “‘Pois dompna s’ave/d’amar’: Na Castellosa’s Cansos and Medieval Feminist Scholarship.” Medieval Feminist Forum 32: 32-42.

McQueen, Kelli. 2015. That’s Debatable!: Genre Issues in Troubadour Tensos and Partimens. Thesis for Degree of Master of Music. Theses and Dissertations. Paper 819. The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Paden, William D. 1981. “The Poems of the Trobairitz Na Castelloza.” Romance Philology. 35 (1): 158-182.

Paden, William D., and Frances Freeman Paden, trans. 2007. Troubadour Poems from the South of France. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.

Rosenberg, Samuel N., Margaret Louise Switten, and Gérard Le Vot. 1998. Songs of the Troubadours and Trouvères: an anthology of poems and melodies. New York: Garland Pub.

Siskin, H. Jay and Julie A. Storme. 1989. “Suffering Love: The Reversed Order in the Poetry of Na Castelloza.” Ch. 6 (pp. 113-127) in Paden, William D., ed. The Voice of the Trobairitz: perspectives on the women troubadours. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

West, Charles. 2013. Reframing the Feudal Revolution: political and social transformation between Marne and Moselle, c. 800 – c. 1100. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

*Reposted by creative commons licence.

Gynoholic / Gynoholism

August 21, 2019September 5, 2023 / rtbavfm / Leave a comment

A Gynoholic refers to all men and women who have become addicted to the narrative of gynocentrism and to the myriad benefits it brings women.

The following 12 steps, spoken by ‘Frank’ serves as a path away from gynocentrism:

Perhaps if all alcoholics followed the Gynoholic 12 steps, they wouldn’t drink alcohol anymore either? As an old friend of mine once quipped about his relationship with gynocentric women, “If they had pledged their love like mine, I would have never needed wine.”

Gynocentrism and the value of men (part two)

August 19, 2019July 13, 2020 / Peter Ryan / 2 Comments

Please read part one¹ of this article before continuing.

By Peter Ryan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rare Eggs And Plentiful Sperm

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

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

Reproduction Is Not The Rate Limiting Factor For Existence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Only Women Ran The World We Could Live In Huts

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

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

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

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

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

Male Self-Worth And The Big Lie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

References:

Gynocentrism and the value of men (part one)

August 19, 2019July 13, 2020 / Peter Ryan / 1 Comment

DNA-men-y-pixabay

By Peter Ryan

As I discussed in my article on Gynocentrism And The Golden Uterus¹, there is a prevailing assertion in the wider gynocentric culture that women are superior to men. The central tenet of this belief system is that because women give birth and are the rate limiting factor of reproduction, they are more biologically valuable than men. The relative biological value of life, and the value of life in general, of males and females, is reduced down to their relative investment in reproduction.

Successfully reproducing offspring is erroneously regarded as having the same outcome as successfully continuing the lineage over generations. At a glance it is easy to see how such an error can be made. It is a fact that any organism must reproduce to pass on its genes. However it is also a fact that any organism must first survive and develop to reproduce. It is also a fact that after reproduction, some degree of parental investment is required for offspring to survive and for reproduction to not become a dead-end.

The problem with stating that ‘women are more biologically valuable to the species than men because they are the rate limiting factor of reproduction’ is that it omits the vast multitude of activities and traits outside of reproduction that contribute to genes successfully passing from one generation to the next. It ignores the reality that biology is comprised of systems. The reproductive role of women is essential (and so is the male reproductive function) to genome propagation, but it is not the only essential role or activity required to get a genome from generation A to generation B or C or D. A number of these other essential activities disproportionately rely on men, such as provision and protection for community survival.

Communities that lose women lose their capacity to reproduce, but communities that lose men lose their capacity to survive. Women might be the rate limiting factor of reproduction, but men are the rate limiting factor of survival. Reproduction cannot occur or lead anywhere without surviving to reproduce and ensuring sufficient numbers of offspring survive. These are the realities that time and time again are ignored and never addressed by those that suggest women are more valuable than men based on the sex difference in reproductive investment. Is it a fact that women are the rate limiting factor of reproduction? Yes. Is it a fact that this is a core driver of biological sex differences? Yes. Does that play a role in driving gynocentrism? Indirectly yes, as it does with most social dynamics between the sexes.

These facts do not then automatically mean the female sex is biologically more valuable (or more valuable in general) than men, or that men are biologically disposable. For those who think I am wrong and remain convinced women are more valuable, and that men are biologically disposable because of differences in reproductive investment, or stick to the fallacious ‘two tribes’ analogy, please read my two part article on Gynocentrism And The Golden Uterus linked here¹ and here².

This article will be focusing on further examining the value of males and females in biological and evolutionary terms and without the gynocentric rose-tinted glasses on. It will also be focused on rectifying common misconceptions floating around in society about the related science which have been promoted by our gynocentric mainstream media and academia to convey a narrative of female superiority.

Certain man haters and female supremacists in the scientific community, and media, make claims like “maleness is a birth defect”³ . Maleness is not a defect. Only the mentally and morally defective would hold such beliefs. Unfortunately for society, such hateful man hating bigots hold senior positions at our universities, in our mainstream media and other institutions. These beliefs cannot be ignored because they reflect the beliefs of too many individuals holding positions of influence and authority in society. This will contribute to undermining the future prosperity and very survival of our society, as civilisation heavily relies on men being in a position to ensure its own existence. I am writing these articles to set the record straight for generations of boys and young men that are being told they are inferior and defective, from every corner of our institutions.

Male Development And Body Size Reflects Male Value

Firstly when evaluating the value of males, we should consider the basic biological characteristics of males. If males were less valuable to the species than females and biologically disposable, then their biology would reflect that. If men were truly biologically disposable, they would resemble the tiny male Anglerfish⁴ that fuses into the female and becomes an appendage (the linked educational video is an amusing literal illustration of this), or a male worker bee or an ant, or a tiny male spider. Men would be much smaller than women and have a much shorter and less energy demanding developmental period, as they would need to be easily and quickly replaced to be disposable. Their low value would not warrant their biology and life history⁵ profile, investing time and energy in a large body size or a long developmental period. Human males are larger than females, take longer to develop and consume more energy during development (Teenage males consume whole fridges). Human male biology runs against the narrative men are biologically disposable and less valuable than women. In particular species where there are males that appear to be “disposable”, males develop quickly and have small body sizes.

Fishers Principle

If we are measuring the biological value of the two sexes, then we have to consider the evolutionary forces that shape biology. Biology exists in its current form because of selection for certain traits and genes that increase the number of copies of the genome or genes. The number of copies of the genome (or genes) that exist after a certain number of generations, is a measure of evolutionary success and thus biological value. Value also has to be considered in relation to the entities that invest in that value.

When it comes to the biological value of males and females, we are measuring the number of copies of the genome (or the number of copies of individual genes of the genome) that male and female progeny contribute to their parents, whom invest in producing the male and female offspring. The overall biological value of males and females to their parents is exactly equal. This is because the total number of copies of a genome produced after a set number of generations for parents of males and parents of females, is exactly equal. That is a mathematical certainty by virtue of the fact that every copy of every genome requires one male and one female to produce it. After ten, one hundred, or one thousand generations, parents of males and parents of females leave exactly the same total number of copies of their genome.

This is why the sex ratio at birth is almost 1:1 and there are roughly equal numbers of males and females in the population. The total parental expenditure in producing males and females will be equal, when the total number of copies of the parent’s genome that male and female offspring generate is equal. Parental expenditure is not just the reproduction of males and females, but also all the parental investment incurred in raising offspring. The reason the sex ratio is slightly biased in favour of males at birth, is because of the higher male infant mortality, which leads to a higher production of male offspring to equalise total parental expenditure in males and females. What I have described is Fishers principle⁶. It is also what evolutionary biologists Dr. Brett Weinstein and Dr. Heather Heying were referring to in this video⁷, when they were discussing why neither sex is “better” in an evolutionary sense. Biology does not have a favourite between males and females, because they produce exactly the same number of copies of the genome.

If the rate of reproduction is all that matters, then why produce a surplus number of males and why not produce an entirely female population? Fishers principle partly explains why that cannot happen. If parental expenditure in a population for male offspring is reduced and increased for female offspring, then any parent that invests in male offspring will be at an evolutionary advantage. This is because the total number of copies of the genome from investing in male offspring remains exactly equal to the total for investing in female offspring, as one male and one female are required to produce every copy. This means that the lower investment in males produces the same level of evolutionary success as the higher investment in females. Consequently parents that invest in males have a winning strategy, as they get more return from their parental investment in males, or more bang for their buck. Parents that develop a genetic bias to investing in males over females, will thus be at an advantage. As a result, investment in males will rise until the advantage from doing so disappears once parental expenditure is equalised.

The dynamics of Fishers Principle I have just described, is called an evolutionary stable strategy⁸. When Fishers principle persists in a species and applies, any deviation from equal parental expenditure in male and female offspring either cannot emerge or eventually disappears. This is because it is inefficient to invest more in one sex, when the total evolutionary success of each sex remains the same. People only need to ask the question why half the population is male, to recognise the tunnel vision of people that assert women are more valuable to the species (or vice versa). If that were the case then our biology would reflect that. Instead of having equal total parental investment in males and females, it would be unequal. It is important to note that whilst Fishers principle is very frequently observed, it is not universal to all life. Evolution and adaptation can bypass Fishers principle and drive an uneven investment in male and female offspring. There are species with very uneven sex ratios, or that reproduce asexually.

Fishers principle restricts a species to equally investing in males and females. If evolutionary success is more dependent on females than on males, then sexual reproduction that leads to an equal investment in males and females becomes costly and risky. A greater dependence on one sex in terms of risk, is analogous to putting all your eggs in one basket. It is also costly because you are wasting half of your resources on a sex whose contribution to evolutionary success relative to females, is lower in proportion to the share of parental investment expended on them. Consequently where evolutionary success is more dependent on females than on males and Fisher dynamics are present, there is a selective pressure to either:

A. Develop a method of reproduction that does not rely on males (such as a form of asexual reproduction), so as to overcome Fishers principle and produce entirely females.

B. Develop males that do equally contribute to evolutionary success.

In our lineage and many others where Fishers principle has prevailed, we have gone down pathway B. The constraints of Fishers principle and females being the rate limiting factor of reproduction, generates a sexual selective pressure on males that is proportional in magnitude to the greater reproductive investment of females. This pressure drives the development of traits in males, that are equivalent in biological value to the value of female reproductive investment and the biological value of women. Despite what feminists claim, men do have innate strengths relative to women. Males have a biological value to the species that is equivalent to that of females, it is just a different form of value. These traits do not make men superior to women, just as having a uterus does not make women more valuable than men.

We have had the current Y chromosome derived male in our lineage for over 160 million years⁹. That is a long time to invest half your genome in a supposedly “disposable” male reproductive vehicle! Dinosaurs walked the Earth and the two supercontinents Laurasia and Gondwanaland had only recently started to break up, when Y chromosome derived males in our lineage first emerged. Males were around even before then in other forms of life for hundreds of millions of years, prior to the Y chromosome form of sex determination emerging.

If men were truly biologically disposable and the rate of reproduction was all the mattered, then at some point in the last 160 million years males would have been removed from the lineage. To illustrate this point, let us assume for the moment that reproductive reductionists are right and that women are biologically more valuable than men because they are the rate limiting factor of reproduction. Over 160 million years there would have been a selective pressure to drive the biology of our ancestors to remove males from our lineage and develop alternative methods of reproduction that rely entirely on females. This is because there would have been a cost incurred from failing to adapt along these lines and a big advantage to avoiding the cost of producing “disposable” males that had little value. Populations that produced asexually would have developed at first by accident and then quickly out-reproduced their counterparts and dominated the future gene pool. Eventually males would have disappeared from the lineage. After more than 160 million years this has failed to occur.

Humans demonstrate equal parental investment in male and female offspring and so have our ancestors over many tens of millions of years. Many species have come and gone, continents have moved and the Dinosaurs have roamed the Earth over the timescale we are talking about. Even in evolutionary terms, there has been plenty of time to develop different reproductive strategies that could have overcome Fishers principle and lead to an entirely female population. Asexual reproduction such as parthenogenesis, which is observed in the natural world, could have emerged in this time frame in our lineage. Why didn’t it? If reproduction matters so much, then why not adopt a far more rapid method of reproduction and have a population entirely of females? The answer is simply that reproduction is not the sole determinant of biological value. That is why our species sexually reproduces to begin with and has males. It is because biological value is not solely determined by the rate of reproduction, that we have males in equal number to females.

Debunking The Nonsense ‘Men And The Y Chromosome Are Disappearing’

There are some gleeful closet dwelling female supremacists and radical feminists in the media and elsewhere, that like to rely on cherry picked research that men will soon disappear because the Y chromosome is supposedly “dying out”. The gynocentric mainstream media has enjoyed promoting this narrative and reporting on it every couple of years. The claim that males and the Y chromosome are disappearing is not supported by most population geneticists, as Dr. Judith Mank explains in her presentation¹⁰ at the Royal Institution. Dr. Mank states that due to selection pressures that have acted on and refined the Y chromosome, rather than degraded, “You have a Y chromosome that’s small but quite mighty in its functions”. Of course people would not know that if they read certain news articles that want to twist science to suit an agenda.

The Y chromosome is not disappearing. The size of the Y chromosomes has stabilised and it has not lost a gene for 25 million years¹¹. The Y chromosome has features (such as palindromes) and mechanisms (such as gene conversion¹²) that enable it repair to itself (see this link¹³, this link¹⁴ and this link¹⁵for more information). Research also shows that purifying selection¹⁶ may play a role in maintaining and refining the quality and structure of the Y chromosome. Lastly it has also been found¹⁷ that the Y chromosome has genes whose functions extend beyond sperm production, that are active in other areas of the body like the heart and lungs etc and play a role in essential cellular processes important to survival. It is thought that the presence of such important genes on the Y chromosome, may be a further factor in ensuring the integrity of the Y chromosome. Even if the Y chromosome does disappear, there are multiple examples¹⁸ observed in other species that males still remain after it is lost and that another chromosome simply takes over the Y chromosomes functions and/or an alternative mechanism of sex-determination is developed.

Linked to this ‘men are disappearing’ myth is a less common but ridiculous narrative that the lower sperm counts of men is evidence that nature is getting rid of males. Firstly the claim that the decrease in sperm counts in men over the last 50 years is going to lead to a male fertility crisis for humans, has been exaggerated and it is unclear such a crisis awaits us. Whilst there has been a large decline in sperm count reported¹⁹, it was also stated that men still have 47 million sperm per ml and that this is well within normal ranges. The average male sperm count is well above the 15 million per ml threshold where fertility problems occur²⁰. With that said, that does not mean this is a problem we should ignore and just make idiotic remarks that “nature” is working against men. Despite what female supremacists claim, the available evidence suggests the declining sperm count of men is not due to nature selecting men out of the gene pool, but is actually driven by artificial causes. Prenatal exposure to plasticizers such as phthalates, have been shown²¹ to negatively affect male fertility. Women are not exempt either from these negative effects. The same plastic chemicals have been shown to also negatively affect female fertility and also their health. See these links here²² and here²³ for more information. The claim lower male sperm counts are evidence of nature getting rid of males, has no leg to stand on.

The Male Variance In Reproduction

It is often quoted²⁴^,²⁵ by some that in the past one man reproduced for every two women. I have heard other numbers cited, some higher, some lower. The exact numbers of male and female ancestors that reproduced is still a matter of debate and has likely fluctuated over time and will probably remain uncertain. It is certainly a fact that males show a greater variance in reproductive success than females. When it is quoted that one man reproduced for every two women, it is misunderstood by some people to mean that men contributed only a third of the genome and women the other two thirds. In reality this is not correct. If one man reproduced for every two women, each man that did reproduce, reproduced at double the frequency of their female counterparts. Whilst lower numbers of men may have passed on their genes than women, those men that reproduced did so at a higher frequency than women. So the total contribution to the genome was exactly equal between males and females, but the contribution per male that reproduced was higher than the contribution per female that reproduced. It is a common misunderstanding to confuse the difference in the numbers of men and women reproducing, with the total level of reproduction of each sex. They are not necessarily identical.

It is also incorrect to assert that because more females reproduce than males, females are more biologically valuable to their parents as more female offspring pass on their genes. Whilst a parent may give birth to males that do not reproduce at all, that does not necessarily mean males in general are less biologically valuable than females. Any population that has fewer males reproducing than females, will also have individual males reproducing at a higher rate than individual females. This is a mathematical reality. There are parents of male offspring that pass on their genome at a higher rate than any female offspring in the population. For every male that fails to reproduce, there is another male out-reproducing his female counterparts.

The total biological value of males and females is exactly equal, but there are differences when comparing the distributions of the biological value of individuals of each sex. As we see predictably with so many human traits, women cluster around the mean of biological value with less variance and men are over-represented at both the high and low extremes with greater variance. There are females that are more biologically valuable than males and males more biologically valuable than any female. I will have more to say later on in this article on why the value of male and female life is greater than its biological value and must be regarded as equal.

The Trivers-Willard Hypothesis And The Biological Value Of Men

Fishers principle applies to the population as a whole and the result is that the total evolutionary success and biological value of male and female offspring to their parents as a whole, is exactly equal. However as previously mentioned, there can be deviations within the population when we consider individual males and individual females within the population. Some male offspring leave more copies of their genes behind than females and some female offspring leave more copies of their genes behind than males.

The Trivers-Willard hypothesis (TWH)²⁶ predicts that the sex ratio of offspring can be varied with maternal condition. This is because males show a greater variance in reproduction than females. The number of copies of the genome males leave behind relative to females, can increase and decrease by a much greater degree. Furthermore, the physical and mental condition of male and female offspring affects their reproductive success. Consequently the reproductive success of sons is much more sensitive to the physical and mental condition of sons, than the reproductive success of daughters is to the condition of daughters. If the condition of a son increases, this could lead to a much larger gain in reproductive success than for a daughter, because male offspring can reproduce at a much faster rate and therefore have a much higher limit on how many offspring they can produce. A daughter in good condition might have 10 children and a son in good condition might have 100 children. The condition of offspring will affect their reproductive success and the condition of offspring is affected by maternal condition. As maternal condition affects the condition of offspring (paternal condition does also in other ways) and the condition of offspring impacts the reproductive success of sons to a greater degree, maternal condition has a greater impact on the reproductive success of males than on females.

To illustrate this point, consider a mother in good condition. A mother in good condition could produce a son in good condition that could father 100 children. In contrast, a mother in good condition could produce a daughter in good condition that could give birth to 10 children. TWH predicts that mothers in good condition, will have a sex ratio biased in favour of producing male offspring to maximise evolutionary success. What happens when a mother is in poor condition? A mother in poor condition could produce a son in poor condition, who will be outcompeted by male offspring in good condition and may father only 1 or 2 children or none at all. Conversely, a mother in poor condition could produce a daughter in poor condition, that may still give birth to at least 4 or 5 children. The poor condition of the mother negatively impacts the reproductive success of the son to a much greater degree than it does for the daughter’s reproductive success. TWH predicts that mothers in poor condition, will have a sex ratio biased in favour of producing female offspring to maximise evolutionary success.

Fishers Principle does provide a constraint on the dynamics emerging from TWH. If every mother in the population is in good condition and produces more sons than daughters, or every mother in poor condition produces more daughters than sons, that will bias the parental expenditure in favour of one sex over the other in the population. Fishers principle predicts parents of the rarer sex in such a scenario, will have a higher return on their parental investment (as the total evolutionary success of each sex is equal and is shared between fewer males than females for example). This will eventually lead to an opposing bias emerging, where more of the rarer sex will be produced and the sex ratio will then shift back to equilibrium.

Whilst the population as a whole will have a sex ratio of virtually 1:1, the cohort of the population in good condition will have more sons than average and the cohort of the population in poor condition will have more daughters than average. The sex ratio bias in each cohort will balance each other out and so neither sex is favoured in the population as a whole. Fishers principle will apply to the population as a whole and TWH will predict confined deviations from the 1:1 sex ratio within cohorts of the population based on maternal condition.

What does TWH have to do with male value? Let us assume that biological value is solely or overwhelmingly derived from reproductive investment and women are more biologically valuable based solely on their greater reproductive investment. If this is correct then we would expect parents to be producing daughters in greater proportion than sons, across all values of maternal condition. This is because females always have a greater reproductive investment than males across all values of maternal condition, thanks to females having a uterus and males lacking one. If parents are in optimal condition, then they are free of external pressures and have the resources available to select for whichever sex they prefer. It would then follow they would select for producing female offspring, in such an instance where females were more biologically valuable than males. TWH does not predict this result and neither do the studies²⁷supporting it, instead they show the predicted bias in favour of producing male offspring when there is good maternal condition.

For those that automatically assume that the effect of maternal condition on the sex ratio is proof of women being more valuable than men, there is research showing that paternal condition also affects the sex ratio. Research has found²⁸ that adult male primates higher in the social dominance hierarchy with higher testosterone levels, can bias the sex ratio in favour of producing sons. It is also worth considering that good maternal condition is not important under TWH, unless it leads to sons that are also in good condition and can successfully compete and survive to make full use of their reproductive capacity. Good maternal condition has value under TWH, only if it positively affects the condition of sons.

Whilst the evidence for TWH remains mixed in humans, there is no evidence to demonstrate that production of female offspring is universally preferred over the production of male offspring by parents, on the basis of females being the rate limiting factor of reproduction. Studies that have better measures of parental investment show more support for the TWH, than studies with poorer measures²⁹. Like most aspects of human biology that are based on systems, relative investment in male and female offspring is multifactorial and cannot be reduced down to a single simple mechanism (like women being the rate limiting factor of reproduction). So it is unsurprising that the evidence shows mixed support for TWH.

Where research runs contrary to TWH, it does not support the claim female offspring are selected over male offspring based solely or primarily on greater female reproductive value. A recent study³⁰ of TWH in humans, reported little support for TWH and found women had a stronger psychological preference for having girls and men had a stronger psychological preference for having boys. If females were more biologically valuable than males, both male and female parents would show a preference for having daughters and yet that was not what was observed.

If females were truly more biologically valuable than males, then the bias to favour having female offspring would be deeply biologically ingrained. There would not be communities in China having a disproportionate amount of sons, based on the cultural tradition of wanting to continue the family name³¹. If all it takes is a cultural tradition of passing on the family name to cause communities to favour sons and skew the sex ratio at birth, then that makes a few claims very questionable and probably wrong. If women were more biologically valuable than men based on their reproductive value, then a preference for daughters over sons would be a universal biological reality with no significant exceptions (certainly not whole communities). No cultural tradition or exception would be strong enough to override such a biological reality, as the bias would exist at such a fundamental level of our nature. Simply wanting to pass on the family name would not stand a chance against such a deeply seated biological bias to favour females, if it actually existed as described.

The Biological Value Of Men That Do Not Reproduce

The number of copies of the genes that male and female offspring contribute to their parents, is not solely determined by their individual frequency of reproduction. It is often said casually by critics of MGTOW (men going their own way), that as these men do not reproduce they will be removed from the gene pool. Of course as predicted, these same people fail to point out that the same reductive reasoning can be applied to many feminists and entitled princesses that also fail to reproduce. The data³² shows that childless women are on the rise. Would anyone dare make the same remarks about childless women as some people do about MGTOW? I don’t think so.

It is also worth pointing out that whilst substantial numbers of MGTOW may not have children, that choice is incidental to men going their own way and very often the result of choosing to not marry women or cohabitate with them. A man going his own way does not automatically translate to a man choosing not to have children, any more than it means having children. MGTOW is a man going his way over gynocentrism and choosing a direction in life based on his choices, rather than winning female approval. Some MGTOW may choose to have children and other MGTOW may choose not to.

The evolutionary reality is actually more complicated than simply asserting that the failure of an individual to reproduce, means a failure to pass on their genes. The number of copies of the genes (or the contribution of the genome) an individual leaves behind, is decided not only by their individual frequency of reproduction, but also by a number of other factors such as:

The number of their offspring that actually survive to sexual maturity and are in a sufficiently healthy condition to reproduce.

The number of offspring their relatives produce and survive to sexual maturity in a healthy condition to reproduce.

The number of offspring genetically similar non-relatives (unrelated individuals that share genetic similarity, will share a certain fraction of genes) produce and survive to sexual maturity in a healthy condition to reproduce.

Concepts like inclusive fitness³³ and kin selection³⁴ matter when considering the total fitness and evolutionary success of an individual. It is not just all based on the individual’s personal reproductive fitness. Whilst there are males that do not reproduce, they may still leave copies of their genes behind. These males may directly and indirectly contribute to the fitness of relatives and genetically similar non-relatives. What is often overlooked by many people, is the contribution men make to the survival of their community and the impact that then has on the capacity of the community to reproduce and also care for offspring. Men that do not reproduce but contribute to the survival of their community, can enhance the capacity of their relatives and genetically similar non-relatives to reproduce and care for their offspring and to pass on their genes. As these individuals share similar genes to the men that do not reproduce, the genes of these men can be passed on to the next generation indirectly through other people.

The concept of alloparental care³⁵ is an important example to consider in this context. In our species, adults care for related and unrelated children that are not their direct descendants. Brothers, uncles and cousins etc that may not reproduce, may care for related kin (which was even more the case in our historical and prehistoric past). Male teachers may educate children that are completely unrelated to them. Men running our basic infrastructure and utilities provide essential services that ensure related kin and non-relatives get electricity, food, water, shelter and basic provisions. Men running our military and emergency services, protect and care for relatives and non-relatives. Men inventing, designing, constructing and maintaining our technology, infrastructure and buildings, ensure our economies continue to churn and their innovation ensures the prosperity of our societies. All of what I am describing either directly or indirectly increases the survival and reproductive prospects of relatives of these men and non-relatives that they share genes with. The list goes on and on. These examples are just a small sample of the alternative activities to reproduction, that can contribute to the evolutionary success or total fitness of individual men and allow men that do not reproduce to pass on their genes indirectly through other individuals.

The cooperation between men to ensure the continued existence of civilisation, has been going on for thousands of years and extends all the way back before civilisation to our primitive hunter-gatherer communities. These cooperative efforts between men, increase the number of copies of their genome and genes they leave behind. A man may do hundreds of activities in his lifetime which allow other activities to occur, which then either helps his own offspring survive, or his relative’s offspring, or the offspring of people genetically similar to him. A man who does not reproduce but drives a train carrying food to a local city or maintains the electrical grid, is indirectly contributing to the continuation of his own genes by ensuring his brothers, sisters, nieces or nephews or genetically similar people in that city, survive and reproduce. A male teacher that teaches unrelated children, may educate pupils that go on to improve the prospects of his relatives or individuals that share genetic similarity to him.

The cooperative efforts between men, can also lead to social rewards that enhance their evolutionary success. Cooperation between unrelated men, can enhance the evolutionary success of both of them. This can even apply where one of them does not reproduce. If such cooperation leads to the man raising the social standing of his family in the eyes of the men he assisted, then this may benefit the prospects of his family in the long term and increase the number of copies of his genes that are passed on through other members of his family to the next generation.

Cooperation, altruism and alloparental care are ubiquitous in our species, because evolutionary success is not solely guaranteed by individual reproduction and is substantially dependent on other activities related to survival that often require coordinated social activity. Such social activity very often involves males working together. The dark triad of human nature exists, but so do the better parts of our nature. It was the mass organised cooperative efforts between men, combined with an organised and rule-based (or honour based) form of competition, that enabled civilisation to emerge and harness male value. The notion that natural selection favours survival of the fittest in a dog eat dog world, is an oversimplification of evolution.

Whilst that raw side of our nature exists, human social behaviour is not solely governed by individual evolutionary success and individuals competing against each other. There would be far more violence and no civilisation to speak of, if human males demonstrated little cooperation and had the same level of competition and aggression as male chimpanzees. The same can also be said about there being far more violence and no civilisation, if human males were truly biologically disposable. Civilisation requires sufficient numbers of men in good mental and physical health to support it and to peacefully work together. This in turn requires society to value the worth of men and not treat them as disposable. Male disposability leads to violence, war and in the long term destroys the male value civilisation requires to sustain itself.

Men Are Not Solely Driven To Reproduce

It would be incorrect to assume that men failing to reproduce means they demonstrate no evolutionary success and have no biological value. As discussed, such men can indirectly leave copies of their genes behind through their efforts to contribute to the survival of the community. There has always been a cohort of men in history and prehistory that never reproduced and had no interest in doing so. They used to be called confirmed bachelors. Men choosing not to marry and have children is not a new phenomenon, it has just markedly increased in recent years with the social changes of rampant gynocentrism and feminism.

The simple fact is that if the hypothesis of men filtering themselves out of the gene pool by failing to reproduce was correct, then the significant and growing cohort of men that are choosing to avoid marriage and children would not exist and would never have arisen in the first place. Male lifestyles of any kind that do not lead to having children (religious clergy, confirmed bachelors and many MGTOW) and any deviation from heterosexuality would not exist, if this hypothesis were correct. This is because the hypothesis depends on the assumption that the only way to pass on your genes is to reproduce and consequently that then means that any predisposition to not reproduce, would have absolutely no chance of passing on to the next generation. Consequently after enough time, only males that desire to sexually reproduce with females would remain in the species.

The reality is that childless or celibate and homosexual men that do not desire heterosexual relationships do exist and have done throughout history. Why? The genes of those men were passed down through other relatives or genetically similar individuals. Take religion as an illustrative example. Dr. Brett Weinstein in a discussion³⁶ with Dr. Richard Dawkins pointed out that whilst clergy may not have reproduced, their contribution to their religion may have indirectly furthered their genes. In actively promoting their religion, they may have encouraged behaviours and practices that could have enhanced the evolutionary success of their relatives and individuals within their communities, that they shared genetic similarity with.

We can go through a long list of famous men like Wilbur Wright, Nikola Tesla and Isaac Newton that never married and never reproduced, but made massive contributions to society that led to technological changes that enabled the population size to mushroom from one billion to seven billion in just a few centuries. There are plenty of unknown men that never reproduced that helped build and maintain all of our roads, canals, railways, airplanes, ships, numerous pieces of infrastructure and buildings we all use on a daily basis. There are unknown men that never reproduce, that farm the land and transport our food to supermarkets. Civilisation relies on a massive coordinated effort of male activity to support the current population size and therefore support evolutionary success. This supportive buttressing effect of coordinated male activity on evolutionary success, was also true for our prehistory before civilisation. Reproduction is not the only contributor to evolutionary success.

Whilst the exact numbers of men relative to women that reproduced in our prehistory is a matter of debate, it is generally accepted that there has always been a cohort of men that never reproduced. There has always been an environment where men needed to find another way to live, pass on their genes and contribute to the community, that did not necessarily involve reproduction. There has been a selective pressure on men to develop an alternative pathway to propagating their genes, when reproductive opportunities are limited.

Much has been said about the strong sexual appetite of men in popular culture (the sex drive of men has been exaggerated), which has been generalised to represent the libido of all men. However there is next to no recognition made about the substantial numbers of men that find fulfilment beyond chasing vagina and whom silently immerse themselves in other pursuits. There are men that spend most of their waking hours in a lab doing experiments, or designing a new device, or doing programming, or building a legal case, or running a company, or working in finance maximising their portfolio returns, or building something in their garage. For these men chasing vagina is often a distraction they have very little interest in. They are married to their interests, hobbies and careers. Some men are wired that way. On occasion such men through the achievements they derive from their single-minded focus on such pursuits, may rise in social status, be instead chased by women and sexually reproduce.

Regardless as to whether they end up reproducing or not, it is my view that the cohort of single men finding an alternative pathway in life beyond mating and reproduction, has been a significant factor that has led to the development of our culture as a species. I believe it has also been a significant factor in much of the exploration, invention, research and discovery that led to the emergence of civilisation. I am not the first person to suspect this either. Nikola Tesla said, “I do not think you can name many great inventions that have been made by married men”³⁷.When Wilbur Wright was developing the airplane he said, “I don’t have time for both a wife and an airplane”³⁸.

I am certainly not suggesting married men or men that have partners, cannot invent and I do not believe Tesla was absolutely correct in the assertion that not many inventions were made by married men. However there is some underlying truth to the remarks of these famous inventors. It is a fact that single men are freer to focus on and undertake certain activities than other men, particularly those pursuits that require large amounts of time and require geographical mobility. Men focused on their intellectual, economic, political, artistic and athletic pursuits and that prioritise them over pursuing relationships with women, will generally spend more time on those pursuits and achieve more. These greater achievements can positively affect the survival and reproduction of their community and indirectly increase their own individual evolutionary success (through benefitting related kin and genetically similar individuals) and that of others.

It is also worth pointing out that when men find alternatives to reproduction, intrasexual male competition drops and so does the level of violence in a community when mating opportunities are scarce. This carries benefits to evolutionary success through ensuring a safer environment to raise offspring and more male cooperation. The greater male cooperation leads to greater provision and protection for the community.

There are numerous examples of men that despite being heterosexual, are immersed in other pursuits and for which relationships are a low or non-existent priority. There is likely a neurological and genetic basis to this alternative pathway in life for men, given how lopsided mating prospects may have been in the past and the evolutionary benefits that can be derived from men pursuing activities beyond reproduction. Barbarosaaa had a few things to say in this video³⁹ on the notion of MGTOW being “inherently” unsustainable and that reproduction is all that counts. Yes a society must reproduce to replace itself, but reproduction means little without the prosperity to support the progeny. Furthermore, once society is past a certain threshold, prosperity for a population matters more to evolutionary success than reproduction (As Barbarosaaa’s video discusses).

Single men can contribute to their evolutionary success in ways that can compensate for not reproducing, by contributing to the betterment of their community. The contribution of these men may be incremental across multiple generations in some cases. For some men their legacy on the survival and reproductive prospects of society may be felt in the second, third and fourth generations of their relatives and unrelated but genetically similar individuals. This may lead to a large increase in evolutionary success over the longer term. The impact certain influential men can have on our culture and the downstream effects that can have on evolutionary success, can be profound. Think of all the philosophers, scientists, inventors, soldiers, legal scholars and leaders etc that left no offspring, but improved their cultures and society and enhanced the future survival and reproductive prospects of dozens of generations.

The Value Of Human Life Is Greater Than The Sum Of Its Parts

When we consider males that do not reproduce, we are not considering their evolutionary success in totality if we just look at their lack of reproduction. With that said, it is a reality that men do dominate the extremes of the bell curve when it comes to evolutionary success and biological value. Men and women have equal evolutionary success and biological value overall, but men are over-represented in the highest and lowest values of the distribution. That does not mean that men who have little evolutionary success are less valuable as human beings, or that men with the highest level of evolutionary success are more valuable than everyone else.

The mentally disabled and the elderly are not regarded as less valuable human beings because they have less potential evolutionary success than the general population. We correctly recognise that the value of human life transcends biological value. Why? Civilisation requires that we respect the value of human life, regardless of the inherent characteristics of that life. This is an essential part of our culture, because it allows us to cooperate and be civil and fair with each other. Reducing the value of human life down to biological value, is a very destructive way of regressing civilisation to violent and barbaric tribalism. There are numerous historical examples of science being used to argue certain groups are subhuman or inferior to justify extermination, sterilisation and the use of eugenics.

Civilised societies that regard the value human life as sacrosanct, tend to be safer and more prosperous. Consequently, they generally do better in passing on their genes than primitive tribal shitholes. Of course all of this basic logic and fact is completely lost on those that want to wilfully ignore the value of men and promote gynocentric double standards based on a narrative that having a uterus makes you a more valuable human being. The value of human life whether it is male or female, is greater than its biological value. The inherent value of all human life must be regarded as equal and not be ranked based on the sex or race etc of the individual. Anything less than that leads to tribalism, social dysfunction, dehumanisation, exploitation and violence. Given enough time any form of implied or overt sexual superiority, leads to mounting social and economic consequences that eventually destroys civilisation.

In part two of this article I will be debunking further sophist arguments that men are biologically less valuable than women and are biologically disposable.

References:

Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins

Anti-gynocentrism is the only anti-feminism that matters

Gynocentrism And The Demographic Implosion Of Western Civilisation

* * *

A sentimental continuation of coverture

How to destroy a society

With this ring I thee adopt

Sexual feudalism

Historical antecedents

In men’s rights discourse

Love service

References

Trobairitz Castelloza speaks out against sexual feudalism & gender inequality

Good lady, you may burn or hang him
or do anything you happen to desire,
for there’s nothing that he can refuse you,
as such you have him without any limits. [1]

Gynoholic / Gynoholism

Gynocentrism and the value of men (part two)

Gynocentrism and the value of men (part one)