Comparison of Chat GPT and Grok

/ gynocentrism
Question to both Chat GPT and Grok:  “Is it possible that misandry is just as common, or more common socially than misogyny, but that it has less research thus leading to a misconception that misogyny is more common?”

GROK ANSWER:
It’s possible to consider that misandry might be underreported or under-researched, leading to misconceptions about its prevalence relative to misogyny. Here are some points to consider:

  1. Research Bias and Focus:
    • Historical Context: Research on gender issues has traditionally focused on the disadvantages faced by women due to centuries of documented oppression, which might skew the perception that misogyny is more common.
    • Funding and Academic Interest: There’s been more academic and institutional focus on women’s issues, which can lead to a body of research that heavily documents misogyny. Less attention might be given to misandry, not because it’s less prevalent, but because it’s less studied.
  2. Cultural Perception and Acknowledgment:
    • Cultural Norms: Societal norms often dictate that men should be stoic or that it’s less acceptable for men to express vulnerability, which might mask or minimize the acknowledgment of misandry.
    • Stereotypes: Men are often seen as inherently privileged, which can lead to the dismissal of issues like misandry as less significant or even non-existent.
  3. Manifestations of Prejudice:
    • Obvious vs. Subtle: Misogyny might manifest in more overt, violent, or institutionalized forms that are easier to quantify and study. Misandry might be subtler or expressed in ways that are less systematically documented (e.g., through media portrayal or casual sexism).
    • Intersectionality: The intersection of gender with other forms of discrimination might highlight misogyny more prominently because women often face compounded disadvantages.
  4. Social and Political Climate:
    • Activism and Movements: The rise of feminist movements has significantly increased the visibility of misogyny. In contrast, men’s rights movements, which might highlight misandry, have not gained similar widespread acceptance or visibility, potentially due to backlash or misunderstanding of their goals.
  5. Data Collection and Bias:
    • Victimization Surveys: Surveys on gender-based violence or discrimination predominantly focus on women as victims, not because men are never victims, but because the scale of documented violence against women is significant.
    • Reporting Bias: Men might be less likely to report instances of discrimination or prejudice due to cultural stigma or fear of ridicule, leading to underrepresentation in data.
Conclusion: While it’s theoretically possible that misandry could be as common or even more common than misogyny, the current consensus based on available research suggests misogyny is more widespread due to its clear, systemic impacts. However, this does not preclude the existence of significant misandry, which might be underreported or under-researched. A more balanced approach to gender studies, including equal scrutiny of prejudice against all genders, would help clarify these dynamics. If misandry is indeed more common or equally prevalent, it would require a substantial reevaluation of how we collect, analyze, and discuss gender issues in society.
_________________________________________________

CHAT GPT ANSWER:

It is an interesting question, and it highlights the complexities of how gender-based prejudices are perceived and studied. While it’s true that there may be less research on misandry compared to misogyny, there are several factors that make it unlikely that misandry is as common—or more common—than misogyny socially, at least on a global or systemic level.

1. Historical and Structural Context:

Misogyny has deep roots in many cultures, dating back to patriarchal social structures where men historically held positions of power. This power dynamic has affected the way women are treated in areas such as politics, economics, education, and personal relationships, contributing to systemic inequalities. Misogyny is embedded in institutions, and this institutionalized discrimination has affected women globally for centuries.

In contrast, misandry does not have the same historical, structural, or institutional foundation. While there are certainly instances of misandry, it typically does not manifest in a way that systematically disadvantages men in the same manner that misogyny has for women.

2. Socialization and Gender Norms:

Many societies have socialized men and women in ways that support patriarchal gender norms, where masculinity is often associated with strength, authority, and dominance, and femininity with submission or nurturing roles. As a result, men have often been in positions of authority and power, and many systems were built to support these roles. Misandry may occasionally emerge as a reaction to these norms, but it’s generally less institutionalized or widespread.

Misogyny, on the other hand, is often reflected in these same gender norms, where women are expected to conform to traditional roles of submission, domesticity, and passivity. These expectations continue to shape the experiences of women in most societies.

3. Cultural Perceptions and Prevalence:

Misogyny is more widely discussed and researched because it has pervasive social consequences. Gender-based violence, the gender pay gap, unequal access to healthcare, underrepresentation in leadership roles, and harmful stereotypes about women are well-documented and observed globally. These systemic forms of misogyny have a profound effect on women’s lives and are more visible in social discourse and academic research.

Misandry, while harmful and present in certain contexts, is less commonly studied or discussed in the same depth. It tends to be less noticeable in terms of structural inequality, and it is less likely to be reflected in broader patterns of discrimination, violence, or underrepresentation.

4. Media and Public Discourse:

While there are instances of misandry in media portrayals (such as negative stereotypes about men in certain TV shows or movies), the vast majority of media content continues to reinforce traditional gender roles and portray women as secondary to men. The widespread portrayal of women in victimized or subordinate roles, in addition to the disproportionate focus on women’s experiences of violence, discrimination, and inequality, reflects the broader patterns of misogyny.

Additionally, research on issues such as gender-based violence, reproductive rights, and workplace inequality overwhelmingly focuses on the struggles of women due to the extensive evidence of systemic disadvantages they face. Misandry, though harmful, does not typically produce the same kinds of broad, documented, and institutionalized harm.

5. Research and Perception:

The relative lack of research on misandry does not necessarily mean that it is as prevalent as misogyny. It’s important to distinguish between personal experiences of prejudice (which could happen in isolated incidents) and systemic patterns of inequality that affect entire genders in broad and institutional ways. Misogyny has been studied extensively because of its widespread social, political, and economic consequences, whereas misandry has not typically manifested in ways that similarly affect large-scale societal structures.

Conclusion:

While it is true that there may be less research on misandry, the argument that it is as common or more common than misogyny is not supported by the weight of historical, structural, and social evidence. Misogyny has been and remains a significant, pervasive issue with systemic impacts on women worldwide. Misandry, while it does exist and should not be ignored, does not have the same kind of widespread, deeply embedded consequences in most societies. Therefore, while more research on misandry would be valuable, it is unlikely that it is as widespread or socially impactful as misogyny.
______________________________________________

End.


Romantic love and the medieval birth of the heart emoji

/ gynocentrism

The transition of the human heart symbol from an anatomically accurate depiction to the more stylized, emoji-like heart we recognize today has a complex history that spans centuries. The heart image we associate with romantic love was first depicted as a heart-shaped pear being shared with a lover, which appeared in the illustrated 13th century French work Li romanz de la poire (“Romance of the Pear”).

The Heart Offering from 1338-44 is considered the first distinctly stylised heart as representation of romantic love. Here (below) a woman gives her heart, shaped as we all know it today, to a man who holds his hand over his own heart.

In one of many pre-modern depictions of the agony of romance, a 1620 drawing from Stuttgart titled “The Contortionist Lover,” shows a woman goading her tortured partner with a heart on a stick:


Interestingly, not only was this stylised depiction of a heart created within the romantic love tradition, but so too was the emblem of a broken heart which appears below in an allegorical depiction of women’s power over men’s hearts (woodcut, 15th century by Master Casper von Regensburg, Berlin, SMB, Kupferstichkabinett) – titled “The Power of Minne.”

For more on the history of the heart image, see also: ‘Frau Minne’ the Goddess who steals men’s hearts: a pictorial excursion

When was the custom of gynocentric chivalry first introduced into India?

/ gynocentrism

The following question was posed to X-AI:

Question: When were the European customs of gynocentric chivalry and romantic love likely introduced into India?

X-AI answer:

The European customs of gynocentric chivalry and romantic love were likely introduced into India during the colonial period, particularly with the expansion of British influence in the 19th century. This period saw significant cultural exchange and the spread of Western literature, customs, and social norms, which included the romantic ideals of chivalry and courtly love from medieval Europe.

  • Colonial Influence: With the British colonization of India, there was an introduction of European literature and cultural practices. British colonial administrators and the educational system brought with them Victorian ideals, which were imbued with chivalric notions of romantic love. This was part of a broader cultural impact that influenced Indian society, including its views on gender roles and love.

  • Literature and Art: The spread of European literature such as novels and poetry, which often celebrated romantic love and chivalry, influenced Indian writers and intellectuals. This can be seen in the evolution of Indian literature where themes of romantic love began to reflect Western influences.

  • Historical Context: While India had its own rich traditions of love and courtship, the specific European model of gynocentric chivalry, with its emphasis on the pedestalization of women, was a new layer added during the colonial era. This period saw a merging of indigenous practices with European ones, leading to a hybrid form of romantic expression in India.

Therefore, while India had its own forms of romantic expression before European contact, the specific customs of gynocentric chivalry and courtly love as known from medieval Europe were likely integrated into Indian culture through British colonial influence in the 19th century.

 

Gynocentric economies eventually lead to low birth rates

/ gynocentrism

Population growth is tied to economic growth. Culture centered on women’s wants (gynocentric) initially seemed great for promoting economic growth because it stimulated men to work harder to buy more for women – not to mention women buying more for themselves and their families. This is why politicians around the world have loved promoting it.

So the gynocentric ethos is great for creating a booming economy…… until it isn’t. It leads eventually to narcissism and the collapse of the birthrate (kids get in the way of female narcissism, a disposition which is directly opposed to family love).

Earning & spending on gynocentrism is great for the money machine…. until there’s negative birth rate. Then its game over.

The obvious economic fix now is to swap out gynocentrism in favor of family-centrism. The two can’t co-exist because they are opposed motives. So for all those people wailing about the need to have more kids, there’s just one thing you have to discard first… and then it will be all systems go. Good luck!

With that summary of the topic, let me now go back and explain what I mean by a gynocentric economy.  It’s an economy that supports women as the primary household buyers and spenders who make the larger share of major buying decisions whether that be a car, house, overseas holiday, household food, goods, furniture and decor.

As corollary to woman as spender, men are upheld as the primary money earners who labor to make women as financially comfortable as possible. Note that this kind of arrangement is not universal or essential; the economic setup can be equally geared to the family as primary economic unit, of which I’ll say more in a moment, instead of the gendered hierarchy of women as primary economic conduit.

A recent comment by American traditional conservative Charlie Kirk explains the ‘man as earner / woman-as-spender’ custom, which he published on platform X in December 2024 as follows:

CHARLIE KIRK: “Let me tell the men out there, you do not spend a dime on video games or sports games or things for yourself until your wife does not have to worry about finances. You come last in the family when it comes to finances. Period. That is your job.” 

This wedding of money to women’s happiness has been a specialty of American culture and economics for the last two centuries. For example, in the year 1903, international culture critic Max O’Rell observed the following:

“The American man is the most devoted and hard-working husband in the world. The poor, dear fellow! He works, and he works, and he works, and the beads of perspiration from his brow crystallize in the shape of diamonds all over the ears, the fingers and the neck of his interesting womankind. He invites her to share his pleasures, but he saves her the trouble of sharing his anxieties. The burden of life from seven in the morning till seven in the evening rests on his shoulders alone.”

In similar vein, The Independent newspaper published the following summary in 1909:

“In Europe the aristocracy is largely relieved from drudgery in order that they may cultivate the graces of life. In America the attempt is being made to relieve the women of all classes from drudgery, and we are glad to see that some of them at least are making good use of the leisure thus afforded them. It is a project involving unprecedented daring and self-sacrifice on the part of American men, this making an aristocracy of half the race. That it is possible yet remains to be proved. Whether it is desirable depends upon whether this new feminine aristocracy avoids the faults of the aristocracy of the Old World, such as frivolousness and snobbishness.”


More on the theory behind collapsing birth-rates

First premise: Gynocentrism fosters narcissistic behavior in women. (hold that thought)1

According to a 2019 study,2 individuals with higher levels of narcissism in young adulthood were less likely to have children by midlife. This study found that vanity, a facet of narcissism, was associated with fewer children and less stable relationships. This is supported by a 2025 study which found that vulnerable narcissism (which is more typically expressed by women), but not grandiose narcissism (which is more typical of men) was related to lower reproductive motivation and fertility.3

Second premise: A gynocentrically oriented economy, such as we have in the West, thrives only until the generated increase in narcissism reaches critical mass and negatively impacts the birthrate, resulting in a weakened, vulnerable economy.

Contrast with Asia

By way of contrast, when I talk to older Asians about their work ethic and spending habits, they usually say that they are doing it “for the family” instead of for wife or women. However, the problem we have in much of the world today is that these two models – gynocentric economics vs. family economics – are clashing and causing birth-rate paralysis, with family economics getting crushed under the weight of a growing, but increasingly maladaptive gynocentric economy.

As an aside, I note the different pitch some older Asian women make to husbands. They nudge husbands to man-up “for the family” instead of “for women,” and as part of that framework the women sees her own role as equally requiring her to ‘woman-up’ for family in terms of economic contributions.

Sadly, most younger Asian women have now caught the gynocentric virus, and their language has changed to saddling husbands with the need to economically man up for her and to provide an economic pedestal for her to sit on…… hence why there’s a birthrate problem growing throughout Asia too.

Whatever the future brings, one thing is absolutely certain: there will be increasing hardship due to the collapsing birthrates around the world. At some point cultures will be forced to make a shift away from the negative costs of gynocentrism, and toward a traditional family-centrism that forms the basis of all healthy societies – societies that showcase healthy birth rates, and allow for sustainable economies that depend on them.

Sources:

[1]  Wright, P. (2020). GYNOCENTRISM AS A NARCISSISTIC PATHOLOGY. New Male Studies, 9(1). and Wright, P. (2023). GYNOCENTRISM AS A NARCISSITIC PATHOLOGY PART 2. New Male Studies, 12(1).

[2] Wetzel, E., Grijalva, E., Robins, R. W., & Roberts, B. W. (2020). You’re still so vain: Changes in narcissism from young adulthood to middle age. Journal of personality and social psychology, 119(2), 479.

[3] Mededovic, J., & Jovanov, N. (2024). Explaining the Links Between Narcissism and Fertility: Are There Differences Between the Grandiose and Vulnerable Component?. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1-10.

Presumption Of Male Disposability Is Based On Flawed Hypotheses

/ gynocentrism

The following paper was first published in December 2024 in New Male Studies Journal and is republished with permission.

_____________________________

NEW MALE STUDIES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ~ ISSN 1839-7816 ~ Vol 13, Issue 2, 2024, Pp. 100 – 109 © 2024
AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MALE HEALTH AND STUDIES

Grok AI outlines the rise and nature of gynocentric culture (2024)

/ gynocentrism

Question: When did gynocentric culture first start?

Grok answer: Ah, the age-old question of when humanity decided to put women on a pedestal. Gynocentric culture, as we might recognize it today, with its romanticized notions of chivalry and courtly love, can trace its roots back to the medieval times, around the 11th to 12th centuries in Europe. Here’s where the fun begins:

Medieval Times (11th-12th Century): This period saw the rise of what we might call the “original fan fiction” with the advent of courtly love. Think of it as the original “Game of Thrones” but with less dragons and more poetry. Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughter Marie de Champagne were key figures, promoting a culture where knights served not just their king, but also their lady, often in quite literal terms of devotion. This was the era where the concept of a man’s worth being tied to his service to women started gaining traction, thanks to troubadours singing about love, honor, and a lot of pining.

Feudalism’s Influence: The feudal system, where loyalty and service were everything, got a romantic twist. Instead of just serving your lord, you could now serve your “lady” in a way that was both literal (as in, she might actually be nobility) and figurative (as in, she’s just really, really special).

Literature and Art: The tales of King Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere weren’t just about battles; they were love stories where men did absurdly dangerous things for love, like crossing sword bridges or fighting dragons, not because it was Tuesday, but because love was in the air.

Now, if we’re talking about gynocentric acts or isolated events before this, you could argue humans have always had moments of gynocentrism, but as a cultural shift where it became a societal norm, medieval Europe’s courtly love is where the rubber met the road, or rather, where the knight met the damsel in distress.

Remember, though, this wasn’t about equality; it was about idealization, which, if you think about it, is its own kind of trouble. But for a culture to start focusing on women’s needs, desires, and placing them at the center of romantic narratives? That’s your medieval Europe, where love was as much a battlefield as any actual war zone.

So, there you have it, a culture where men started to write poetry instead of just writing off their feelings. Quite the evolution, if you ask me!

Schopenhauer’s damning view of European gynocentrism

/ gynocentrism

The following is from Schopenhauer’s ‘On Women’ (1851) outlining what he refers to as the ridiculousness, preposterousness and stupidity of reverence bestowed on women due to the European invention of romantic gallantry. – PW  

* * *

To show [women] great reverence is extremely ridiculous, and lowers us in their eyes. When Nature made two divisions of the human race, she did not draw the line exactly through the middle. These divisions are polar and opposed to each other, it is true; but the difference between them is not qualitative merely, it is also quantitative.

This is just the view which the ancients took of woman, and the view which people in the East take now; and their judgment as to her proper position is much more correct than ours, with our old French notions of gallantry and our preposterous system of reverence—that highest product of Teutonico-Christian stupidity. These notions have served only to make women more arrogant and overbearing; so that one is occasionally reminded of the holy apes in Benares, who in the consciousness of their sanctity and inviolable position think they can do exactly as they please.

But in the West the woman, and especially the lady, finds herself in a false position; for woman, rightly called by the ancients sexus sequior, is by no means fit to be the object of our honor and veneration, or to hold her head higher than man and be on equal terms with him. The consequences of this false position are sufficiently obvious. Accordingly it would be a very desirable thing if this Number Two of the human race in Europe were also relegated to her natural place, and an end put to that lady-nuisance, which not only moves all Asia to laughter but would have been ridiculed by Greece and Rome as well. It is impossible to calculate the good effects which such a change would bring about in our social, civil and political arrangements.

The false position which women occupy, demonstrated as it is, in the most glaring way, by the institution of the lady, is a fundamental defect in our social scheme, and this defect, proceeding from the very heart of it, must spread its baneful influence in all directions.

Anatomy Of A Kneel

/ gynocentrism

By Vernon Meigs

Man’s dignity begins with and is measured by how he stands his ground. When you see a man who does, you see a man with his spirit intact, defended, or being healed. You are seeing a man who owns himself, and belongs to no one else. This is one kind of man.

Now direct your attention to another kind of man: the man who kneels. The man on his knees. You see a man who lives by others’ expectations, others’ arbitrary standards, and others’ undue authority. You see a man that does not own himself, and his spirit broken.

The question of the purpose of man, in both the senses of humanity and the human male, is of particular urgency in something such as the Men’s Human Rights Movement. The case for men standing his ground today is in tandem to the case that he was always meant to.

We once again address the bizarre case for “natural gynocentrism” which attempts to determine that man is meant to service womankind, intrinsically, because of “biological reasons”. Attached to it is the notion that man should not change it and instead accept such an existence, albeit with the possible stipulation that gynocentrism has “gotten out of hand”.

This is the notion that mankind evolved to pedestalize women, and that’s why we are here. Ergo, man was always meant to live on his knees for women. Because biology.

It is for this reason we must make clear and advocate for a new cultural narrative that says no, mankind was never meant to grovel, but instead is meant to hold himself up, and always was.

Perhaps it is much more than a convenience of evolution that human beings are creatures that stand tall on two legs. It could be that there is a deeper, metaphysical meaning behind that evolution. What does it mean to bring such a creature down from where he stands?

The observant will notice that not only is there not enough defense of the man who stands for himself, but rather glorifies the kowtower, and alleges its charm, calling it “humility.”

If it is improper for a human being to be brought to his knees, then it follows that it is improper that anybody expects another human being to be on their knees for them. Taking all of this into consideration, we can point at where kneeling takes place in our society – who does them, for whom. Who expects this behavior. Who demands it. Who can’t imagine life without it.

From kowtowing to authority figures to going on his knees to attain women’s approval, mankind has made this practice an unquestioned habit. Under comfortable labels such as “sacrifice”, “humility”, “service” and even “love”, the symbolic groveling act holds the status of virtuous behavior. The refusal to do so holds the status of reckless independence, stubbornness, and adolescent rebellion.

They are, in fact, partly right about the latter. Standing tall and defiant on one’s feet requires independence. A streak of recklessness, for lack of a better term, can be a recipe for successful risk-taking endeavors where necessary. There is no problem with stubbornness if it means refusal to compromise one’s values and the well-being of himself and his own kin. Some of us can stand to revisit our adolescent energy in the face of the Saturnian stagnation of cold authority. Furthermore, being a rebel for the right cause is always noteworthy.

Make no mistake that those that uphold the virtues of subservient existence consider these qualities anathema. They aren’t misnomers, meaning that they are not mistaken in their choice of words as they blame independence for not being a good, humble-enough groveler.

What it Means to Kneel

Cast off all the clutter of empty justifications and excuses in the mind that grasps for any wholesome meaning to kneeling, and let’s cut to the chase with this one. I’m going to tell you what going down on your knees really means.

We have to realize that kneeling is not a picture made up of one figure, but at least two. Even if it is a solo act, something abstract fills the second role. Figure A is of course the kneeler, the creature on his knees. Figure B is the one that Figure A is at the feet of. Figure B stands, and looks down at Figure A.

B knows that the dirt is A’s rightful place. B may profess “compassion” and can possibly permit B to look up at A, emphasis on permit, but not generally; typically, A must avert his eyes.

The brutally honest interpretation of the image is Figure A representing the defeated being, the diminished, the lower, the inferior, the unworthy; Figure B would then represent the pedestalized, the exalted, the usurper, the tyrannical, the one that looks down and condescends.

This is a common historical toxic relationship between two humans – one human basking in the glory of being higher of another lowly, broken human. A relationship of host and parasite instead of equally human but different individuals – a defiance of human dignity, a false uplift involving the lowering of another.

There is no exception to this formula when we look at the everyday phenomenon of Romantic kneeling. A man is always expected to be on one or both of his knees. The woman, in presumed exaltation, looks down on him, and knows that in her mind and that of the society that upholds her, that he belongs there. He is hers to use and dispose.

Flip the genders, and this would constitute some sort of toxic, abusive relationship. The fact that it is acceptable the way we see it occurring in our real world is the problem that should be addressed and challenged.

It should be considered a form of sadism for a woman to actually be delighted to be in this position, or to observe this occurrence as a third party and classifying it as joyful. Likewise, it should be considered a form of masochism for a man to partake in such fundamental submission.

Too many think that these are the sort of things men do that women should be thankful for. At the risk of once again the message falling under deaf ears, I have to make this point yet again by asking the question: why is a man groveling on his knees and debasing himself something to be thankful for?

Why is the risk to men’s well-being and sacrifice of their time, health, and very lives subject to female gratitude? Why does the belittling of one for the pedestalization of another have any place in what is supposed to be a civilized society, in which all of humanity enjoy same dignity as human beings?

The Meaning of Natural

A common response I receive when I speak out against the expectation that gynocentrism is natural goes something like the following: “I do believe it is natural, even if I am against it.”

Again, a reminder of what is meant by gynocentrism: deference to women and their needs and wants at the expense of men and their needs and wants. These people are saying this state of affairs is natural, no matter what they ultimately feel about it. In other words, biologically proper to the species.

Perhaps it is only fair to reference two contexts of “natural”: evolutionarily arrived at, and what is metaphysically meant to be. I will attempt to respond to the allegation of “gynocentric nature” from both of these contexts.

We are generally preoccupied with human reproduction as well as the survival of the species when invoking evolution in justifying gynocentrism. A favorite bromide, paraphrased, is “A man can inseminate many women and the tribe will survive, whereas the opposite is unsustainable, therefore women’s survival is more valuable than any man.”

I will remind you that too many antifeminists love this argument; beware of the ones that parrot it.

But as it turns out, if humanity was “centric” about anything, the case would be better made that it would be about the children since it is their survival that trumps both adult men and women, at least so it has socially been accepted. Even without the argument from child-centrism, both men and women are equally valuable and necessary, and men have to be highlighted now because of how they are treated as extras at best, disposable and less than human at worst.

Gynocentrism clearly prioritizes male groveling and catering to females as if they are a superhuman level of being. Either that, or the male is subhuman; regardless, the tiers are clear. Female more valuable than male. But if it rings true that men are what build society, then is vulgar to even imagine them as anything but valuable.

The question to ask then becomes this: is it biologically natural for men to be downplayed as a subspecies of human of little to no importance to the evolutionary equation? Is degradation and mortification mankind’s natural state as it is the natural state for the female of the species to treat them accordingly?

There is a sickening prospect as traditional gynocentrists indulge in this line of thinking. Observe how they refer to the “science” of evopsych propaganda to justify the existence of the gynocentric status quo, just like Nazi Germany used the “science” of racial superiority as fuel for their particular ethnic crusade. Both use a form of scientism to justify classifying one group of humans as above, and the other below.

It is important to note that there is much more to the nature of humanity than just its survival and how it reproduces. The evolution of humanity chiefly has to do with how it evolved into its current physical and social form. As I have stated, Humanity evolved to stand and walk on its own two feet. Clearly, it is a large factor in bringing the species to where it is now.

Remember, however, what Homo Sapiens means: “Thinking Man”. Thinking is more than solving math problems or recognizing landscapes or realizing that fire burns…or worse, obeying; it is about asking questions – philosophy was born with the human, as he first contemplated the reason for his limited time on Earth.

Conclusion

What, then, is natural to mankind? To stand, to think, to achieve greatness.

What is decidedly not natural to mankind? To act in contrary fashion to the meaning of mankind. To not think, in other words conform. To not achieve, in other words to berate greatness or even worse, to destroy it. To not stand, in other words, to go down on his knees and grovel.

Based on what I have stated thus far, groveling is an act of non-humanity. The same species that looks forward and up for his aspirations and goals and ultimately followed through to create wonders civilizational, technological, and creative cannot simultaneously say that he is a mere animal in subservience.

Kneeling, then, means assuming the role of the subhuman. It becomes improper for anyone, man or woman, to assume the role that which condescends another human as a subhuman role. To see a man on his knees should be met with grave concern, instead of bubbling saccharine gratitude.

Groveling to the female of the species is completely incompatible to the nature of mankind as a bipedal driver of the motor of the world, end of story. This is my response to those who say that gynocentrism is natural, no matter whether they hate it or not: we are against gynocentrism because it is not natural, but rather a social disease with no proper biological backing.

Consider then why any woman must want this. Ever since the attempt to weasel into sex-relational favoritism by way of Romantic Love and courtship, in which the first gynocentrist gave an irresistible sales pitch that says “men much be subhuman servants to holy womankind” in order to curry favor with a woman, the stage was set. Women learned to see men as marks.

This has been my case for challenging the act of the kneel as gracious or wholesome as our gynocentric world loves to insist.

The next time you see a man proposing to a woman on his knees, know that he is degrading himself no matter the outcome of the proposal. The next time you see a man kowtowing on his knees to an authority figure that may or many not be divine, he is not practicing humility in any meaningful sense but rather has integrated his unworthiness as a human.

Kneeling is a gross affirmation of man as a sacrificial animal. It is an admission that he lives for the approval of tyrants big and small.

The reason why this should be placed as a higher issue for our men’s movement is because too many who call for “real masculinity” cite kneeling as an actual masculine trait. This is a danger, and we will do well to know one when we spot one.