The Nature Of Male Value And Our Gynocentric Culture Part Two

Please read part one of this article before continuing.


The Gynocentric Obsession With Asserting Men Are Inferior:

I understand the desperate need of gynocentric bigots to justify their own double standards of prioritising women above men, with the reductionist concept that reproduction is all that counts to propagating your genes and that having a uterus makes women more biologically valuable and that men are more expendable. I understand the lengths and the efforts they will go to, to assert their falsehoods and silence any dissenting opinion. Gynocentrism requires rationalisation for bigots to make their bigotry more palatable and acceptable for society. Distorting science to provide a supposed empirical basis for their bigotry, is a key method that they employ. This is why I have spent so much time writing on the subject of male value to set the record straight and it really does not help when the manosphere repeats the lie men are inherently biologically expendable. As we saw in the phrenology scene10 in the movie Django Unchained, junk science has been used to make all sorts of claims about group superiority.

The rationalisations and sophist claims that men are expendable because they lack a uterus and that women have to be elevated above men to preserve the species, are just a different flavour of the same bigoted logic from that scene in the movie and just as ridiculous. The same claim men are destined to be the more disposable sex because they lack a uterus, is analogous to the reasoning that African-Americans were destined to remain slaves because of supposed dimples in their skull. The key difference is that we now at least recognise one of these beliefs as bigotry.


Why Do We Believe Men Are Less Than?:

Why is the lie men are less than so widely believed? People will look for simple ideas that justify their emotionally preferred worldview and appease their conscious. This applies to the manosphere as well. It is a comforting lie to believe that the sexism men face is an unavoidable and immutable facet of biological reality and the manosphere is no exception. However this gynocentric society is not comprised of people that are slaves to their biology. No, no, no, people do not get off that easily. People are wilfully and consciously going along with the marginalisation and exploitation of men and boys. The reason for this is not some innate biological mechanism, but the reality in our modern gynocentric culture that there is no incentive to care for men and every incentive to exploit them. Men that do not value themselves cannot expect society to care for them. Men that do not enforce boundaries with women and stand up for themselves, cannot expect women to not take advantage of them. The way men are treated by society, is a reflection of the way men treat themselves. The way men treat themselves is a reflection of how men perceive themselves.

The reason why society gives a shit about women, is because women give a shit about women. The reason why society does not give a shit about men, is because men do not give a shit about men. Ultimately society cares about women, because women give them an incentive to care and a disincentive not to. In contrast men simply place most of their sense of self-worth in what they achieve or do. Men place very little value in their physical and mental being. Society reflects that perspective right back at men in how men are treated. Men who regard themselves as human doings are treated as human doings. If men really want this to change, then they will need to change their perception of themselves from human doings to human beings.

Social stagnation is the norm for society and the social status quo prevails, because most people will not change without an incentive to change. Slavery was not abolished until sufficient numbers of people were incentivised to abolish it. The absolute rule of monarchs was not questioned until sufficient numbers of people were incentivised to challenge the established order. Every significant evolution of society has been preceded by a change in the mixture of incentives and disincentives in society. Things have to reach critical mass for major change to occur.

For centuries men have performed for society, because their own survival and the survival of society depended on it. This often meant that substantial numbers of men made sacrifices and died. What we have in the modern age, is a situation in which the fruits of what men provide are taken for granted. Technology has allowed apathy, short term thinking and decadence to dull our senses. Society has forgotten the true value of men and even men have forgotten their own true intrinsic value. Men cannot “do” for society, without caring for their being first. This is a basic reality that society and men have forgotten because of our decadent materialistic mentality, which has become divorced from reality and our long-term survival interests. Men are human beings first and the doing part comes from their being. Society has descended into a mass delusion, where we have forgotten that men are human beings and that their value emerges from that.

Why has male value been forgotten? Male biological value is more fluid in its form than female biological value. The reproductive role of women does not change much from one environment to the next. How men contribute to the survival of society, does vary to a much greater degree from one environment to the next. The result of this is that male value is not as fixed as female value and as a consequence there is more scrutiny placed on men to prove their value. It is harder to assess male value than female value and requires men to demonstrate their capacities. When you hear people say things like “man up”, “be a man” and someone define what a man is, you are hearing people call upon men to prove their biological worth. This is a social pressure women do not experience to anywhere near the same degree as men. No one dares to tell women to “woman up”.

Social scientists call this social pressure on men to perform to prove their worth as men, “precarious manhood”11. A positive side to the greater fluidity of male value, is that men have many paths they can take to express their biological value to society. For women their biological value is more fixed on motherhood. Women have greater stability and certainty in their biological value, but men have more freedom and scope in the expression of their biological value. Men rising to the top of their profession and pursuing a career or a talent or natural interest, will have a greater impact on their evolutionary success than it will for women. This biological difference does at least partly inform our societal attitudes and culture.

I do believe that this asymmetry between the sexes, is part of the reason why feminism has emerged and demanded all of these changes be made to our institutions and workplaces to empower women to pursue employment or other interests over having children. I understand, respect and support the need of women to find meaning in their lives outside of having children and to be valued for more than just their uterus.

Whilst we clearly do not have a 50:50 gender representation in all aspects of our economy and society and never will, it is a reality that there are no barriers left holding women back. Whilst evolved biological sex differences in interests and abilities do exist and do at least partly explain these differences in gender representation in society and why they will always remain, we have overturned the social and legal barriers that may have existed for women in pursuing a pathway outside of motherhood and being valued beyond motherhood.

The challenge I have for society, is that if we can clearly overcome our fixation on associating female value solely or primarily to motherhood, then we can do the same for men and their provision and protection for society. We can overcome our knee-jerk reaction to assign value to men based on what they “do” for society and how they perform. We can overcome and move beyond precarious manhood. As Dr. Warren Farrell has written about, if women are sex objects, men are success objects. If we can address one biologically informed cultural bias against women in regarding them as sex objects, then we can address the other bias against men in regarding them as success objects. If we can remove barriers for women, we can remove barriers for men.

There is another factor at play here as well. The male role in contributing to the survival of the community can obstruct our capacity to have concern for the well-being of men. When the community is dependent on men for survival, it becomes harder to see the need to support men. The nature of male value means that it essentially gets in the way of societal concern for male well-being. Men naturally want to take risks and they want to challenge themselves and take on hardships and society often benefits because of the extraordinary things that men do. Just as before, there is a positive flipside. Freedom for men is one of the most important things you can give them. Whilst there is less concern for male well-being from society, there is also less inhibition in allowing men to expose themselves to challenging and risky pursuits that can be highly rewarding both financially and otherwise. Men often find fulfillment and are naturally drawn to these pursuits. Men literally skydive from the edges of space and go to the bottom of the world’s oceans, because they have a passion to push the envelope of possibility.

Whilst there are certainly psychological and physiological sex differences that at least partly explain sex differences in the representation of risky, challenging and dangerous work that has high personal and financial reward, it is also correct to observe that men have had greater freedom to take on risky and challenging pursuits in the past. Both factors are at play. Whether it is exploring the world on sailing ships, pioneering on the frontier of new territories, undertaking expeditions to find the Northwest passage and go to the North and South Pole, mining in the gold rush, flying prototype aeroplanes, or going into space, society has historically given men more latitude to pursue these rewarding but dangerous endeavours. Women have traditionally been protected from risky and challenging work and this has come to some degree at the expense of part of their freedom.

Just as society has had less concern for male well-being, there has been less concern for women’s freedom outside of getting married and having children. Just as society has relied on men for survival, society has relied on women to produce the next generation. Just as male value has partly obstructed societal concern for male well-being, female value has partly obstructed societal concern for women’s freedom. The concern for men to provide for society got partly in the way of society caring for men’s well-being and the concern for women to produce children got partly in the way of society caring for women’s freedom.

Again this asymmetry is no doubt partly why feminism has emerged for women and I understand, accept and fully support the need for women to have the freedom to be more than just a mother. The second challenge I have for society though, is that if we can overcome our protective fixation on making sure women stay at home and raise children, then we can overcome our reservation in caring about men’s health and general well-being.

Despite what feminists claim, both men and women have faced discriminatory practices throughout our history and both sexes have had different types of “privilege”. It has not been a man’s world and an “oppressive patriarchy”, it has been a world where men and women struggled for thousands of years to subsist and continue society. When faced with the risk of death, disease and starvation on a semi-regular basis, men and women had much less choice on how to live and the roles the sexes were to play in society.

Technology which mostly men invented, has given us the opportunity to escape our traditional biological roles and opened up options that simply were not possible before. We have the capacity to go beyond our basic biological programming and ironically society has demonstrated this with feminism. If we can overcome our societal reservations on women being something other than a mother, than we can overcome our reservations on addressing male well-being and recognise the intrinsic value of men as human beings. If one sex can be freed from the confines of their biological mandate, then so can the other sex. This is because the biological mandate of each sex (the rate limiting factor of reproduction versus the rate limiting factor of survival) is interconnected and interdependent.

Some say that feminism is merely entirely an extension of biology and from a reductionist lens that position may seem tenable. Certainly there are biological factors at play driving feminism, to at least some degree. However when we consider how antithetical feminism is to female fertility and the net evolutionary impact that has on the continuation of communities and lineages within a population, the absolutist position feminism is entirely biological and driven by evolution, simply has no empirical leg to stand on. Feminism has created countless numbers of childless women that will not directly pass on their parent’s genome. If reproduction for the individual is “everything” from a skewed (and wrong) evolutionary perspective and women are the rate limiting factor of reproduction and biology is supposedly inescapable, then feminism in its present form should not have happened and yet it has. There is more to human evolutionary psychology and culture, than just reproduction and biology.

I wrote in part 2 of Gynocentrism And The Golden Uterus12, that men are not biologically disposable. I wrote that male disposability is a pathological expression of a society that has abandoned concern for male well-being and now takes them for granted and exploits them. I made the point that society has historically had to possess at least some concern for male well-being to minimise avoidable losses of men, to ensure its own existence and prosperity. Whilst there has indeed been some gut level inhibition that society has had in showing concern for male well-being, society in the past has also had an understanding at a cognitive level that we must look after and support men to at least some degree, so that men can in turn support society.

A king may not have had much concern for the individual well-being of his soldiers at a gut level, but cognitively he understood the need to adequately feed, pay and train them so they would effectively fight. We have recognised this need in our past culture to support men not a gut level, but at the cognitive level. Another example of this can be seen in how our educational institutions in the past were established to educate boys, so that they would then be equipped as men to support society and families.

What has happened, is that technology has delayed the need for society to think about the long-term consequences of neglecting male well-being (we have lost our long-term perspective on many other things in general as well, like private and government debt for instance). So we have gradually slid into a mode of perceiving men as human doings and not as human beings and on assigning value to what men do, but not to the men themselves. We have lost our cognitive connection between caring for men as human beings, so men can in turn support society. It is a cognitive connection we must restore before we are too late to realise what is happening in time to save society. Our current social and economic prosperity cannot be sustained in the long term without caring for male well-being. It is only through the massive resource surplus of our civilisation (which is gradually diminishing), that there has not yet been mass awareness of the decline of our societies and its link with the issues facing men. We are in a cycle of decadent short term thinking, where the concerns for the future of our civilisation has become an afterthought and so has concern for men and what made our society great. We must snap out of this cycle. Every civilisation reaches this decadent stage of decline in its final stages before it collapses.

This is a glimmer of hope though. People are waking up. People are starting to notice what is happening to men and boys. Is it happening slowly? Yes, very slowly. All social change happens very slowly initially with few exceptions. Even the mainstream media now though13, is starting to pay attention and show some genuine concern for men. So yes things are changing. If feminism can push back against the rigid expectations and attitudes that were directed at women, so can men when it comes to the rigid expectations and attitudes that have been directed at men.

However to accomplish this goal, men must first change their perception of themselves from human doings to human beings and men must help each other and boys achieve that. We need a new cultural narrative on masculinity. A narrative that focuses on men as human beings before paying attention to what they do. The movie Joker14 is one example of this new type of narrative. Its popularity is no doubt at least partly the result of the film’s storyline filling a void in our gynocentric culture in recognising the humanity of men and men’s pain. Into The Wild15 is another brilliant film that focuses on men as human beings and their pain, vulnerabilities and inner world. Society is in need of a change to our narratives on men and masculinity. Not a feminist inspired change that tells men they are “toxic” or “obsolete”, but a change that tells men they are human beings first and foremost and have intrinsic value.

From 1848, it took more than a century for feminism to achieve many of the goals it set out to achieve. Men face a similar wait. Social change happens slowly at first and it can slow and speed up at various stages over time. Just because change may not be immediate and may be slow, does not mean men’s place in society is biologically immutable. Our major hurdle in my view in the manosphere, is getting over the belief that men are biologically less than women and actually biologically disposable, as opposed to considering male disposability a pathological expression of a society that exploits men and has forgotten their value. Gynocentrism is built on and dependent upon maintaining the lie that men are less than women. Only when this lie is unlearnt, can gynocentrism really be challenged.


The Self-Fulfilling Cycle Of Learned Helplessness

The claim women are more valuable than men, has been put forward multiple times directly and indirectly in the culture over the last fifty years and in various ways even before then. We have all been raised in this lie from birth and have lived in a gynocentric culture saturated by it. This false claim has also unfortunately been propagated in the manosphere as well and often used to explain the origins of sexism against men. The major difference of course between female supremacists/radical feminists and the people in the manosphere that put forward this idea, is that female supremacists consider it to be vindication that their worldview is the natural order of things and treating men like shit is the way it should be.

In contrast proponents of this idea in the manosphere that women are more biologically valuable, either avoid the implications of what it means (including the implied futility of what they are doing in the manosphere to get society to pay attention to men), or alternatively adopt a black pill fatalistic view16 that there is little scope for any substantive mainstream change for society to address the discrimination, hatred, marginalisation and exploitation of men and boys. This mentality is one expression of the learned helplessness factor I described in my article on the Normalisation Of Gynocentrism17 and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for men. Men deserve better. We should recognise biology and our limitations, but we should be cautious not to resign ourselves to a fatalistic worldview, or to fall into a reductionist line of reasoning. Things are not as simple or as set as they seem. The manosphere has to move away from this fatalistic perspective and recognise the true intrinsic biological value of men, if it is to move forward in any substantive way.

One example of propagating the idea women are more biologically valuable than men in the manosphere, comes from a video from Karen Straughan called, “Neoteny!”18. Now before people start thinking this is a hit piece on Karen Straughan, let me assure you it is nothing of the kind. Karen has done some excellent work for men and boys and continues to do so. It is also worth noting that Karen is not the only one that has propagated this idea in the manosphere either. There are plenty of other examples from other people (men and women, mgtow and mra’s, both high and low profile) I could have cited over many years.

It is because the idea that women are more biologically valuable than men (and that men are biologically expendable) is so widespread in the manosphere and never questioned, that I am addressing it so thoroughly in this two part article, in my series of articles on gynocentrism and male value and in my earlier series on gynocentrism and the golden uterus. Karen was inviting criticism of her video and so I will provide it. I can be wrong, Karen can be wrong, we all can be wrong. The danger is not in being wrong, the danger comes when people remain silent when they know people are wrong. That is when rigid ideology forms and we stagnate and divorce ourselves from reality.

In her video Karen makes an argument that the sexism men face is at least partly innate (as she says we can see from sex differences in neoteny and the social reactions that invokes) and that this innate sexism arises from the fundamental reality that women are more valuable than men. Her reasoning is essentially that women evolved neotenous features to a greater degree than men to elicit protection from the community and that we protect the more valuable and so women are more valuable than men.

Neoteny is certainly a trait that women have to a greater degree than men, although in our modern environment women exaggerate their neoteny. The innate sex difference in neoteny whilst still substantive, is considerably less pronounced once you take away female cosmetics. Prehistoric women were no doubt more weathered, hairy, dirty and adult in appearance, than many women appear today. Neoteny certainly can elicit help from the community, but as with many characteristics, there are multiple suggested causes for the sex difference in neoteny.

One explanation19 is that female neoteny was sexually selected by males, as female fertility markedly decreases with age. Men find more youthful looking women more physically attractive as younger women are more fertile and so more neotenous women pass on their genes. Sex differences in neoteny don’t necessarily reflect women having a greater biological value than men. Female neoteny can function as a biological marker to attract males to signal fertility. I do not think we should ignore the likely possibility that this dynamic could at least in part be at play in explaining the sex difference in neoteny. Of course certain people (cough feminists) and even some corners of academia (yes scientists can be biased and less than objective), rally against such explanations because it does not suit their narrative of female superiority.

Greater female neoteny is the result of differences in the manner in which each sex can maximise the propagation of their genes, rather than because women are more valuable than men. As I have discussed in the first part of this article and in part 2 on Gynocentrism and Male Value20, the male and female sex manifest their biological value differently- One sex derives value by investing more heavily in reproduction and the other sex derives value by investing more in survival. I specifically singled out in my writings the greater intrasexual competition of males, as one of the ways male value manifests itself. There is an inverse relationship between the level of reproductive investment by a sex and intrasexual competition, which is what Bateman’s principle describes21.

Whilst competition is certainly not the sole domain of men, the biological reality is that men stand to gain far more from competition than women. The male sex can produce far greater numbers of progeny per unit of time, because males do not gestate or lactate and are thus more freely available to derive benefits from the mating opportunities arising from competition. The male sex also has the capacity to invest far more in activities related to acquiring status, competing and that are high risk/high reward or high effort/high reward, because they do not have to gestate or lactate.

Now let us consider the sex difference in neoteny and the presumption that neoteny has at least in part evolved to a greater degree in women to elicit protection. Will an individual be more successful at competing with others if he or she has to rely on the support of others to compete? How will that affect their status in a socially competitive hierarchy? Will an individual be more successful in acquiring status and engaging in high risk, high effort and high reward activities, if they have to rely on the support of others? Competition, status seeking, taking risks and undertaking challenges, all require one thing- personal agency. Personal agency requires independence and self-reliance rather than eliciting protection from the community. It is true that men have not evolved to elicit protection from the community to the same degree as women. However that is not the result of men being less valuable than women. It is because the life history strategy through which men manifest their biological value and pass on their genes, is different to women and requires different sets of traits.

The greater agency shown by men, is the reason why it is inevitable modern civilisation will be led by men. In order to lead in our modern complex world at the highest levels, you must accept high levels of responsibility and with that responsibility comes a large amount of sacrifice, hardship, risk and the need to be highly self-reliant and independent. This is what feminism does not understand or want to accept and why a “matriarchy” cannot scale to modern civilisation and is bound to fail with horrible social and economic consequences if it is forced on society.

The fatal flaw in Karen’s reasoning, is the implied assumption that we always protect what is valuable and we only do not protect what is expendable. We do protect what is valuable, but not always. There are valuable things in the world that we expose to risk and hazards, because that is how their value is harnessed. Sometimes we do not protect what is valuable, when the source of value is protection itself, or the value is harnessed by exposure to challenge, hardship and risk. We spend billions of dollars on valuable military hardware, race cars and spacecraft and expose them to risks and hazards, because that is how we harness their value. Value alone does not determine whether or not something is protected. There is a duality to value that exists between the sexes that Karen has missed in her video. The duality of survival and reproduction and the interplay between the two in a complex life history strategy to perpetuate the human genome. One form of value that requires protection and another form of value that actually manifests itself as protection.

We also need to remember that both sexes died performing their biological roles. It is not as if women were so biologically valuable that nature protected them from hardship and put it all on men. Women risked their lives in their reproductive role and did die or suffered chronic health conditions from pregnancy and giving birth. Men risked their lives protecting and providing for society and died and suffered from injury as well. The deaths of men and not just women, cost their communities in terms of both reproductive capacity and survival capacity.

There is a duality between the sexes to sacrifice and the cost of their sacrifice to the community. Women have not escaped biological hardship because they are more valuable, they just have experienced a different form of hardship. We can argue over which sex has had it “worse”, but really any sex difference in the degree of hardship comes down to the differences in the environmental and cultural conditions pertaining to their different biological roles and life history strategies, rather than differences in biological value.

The problem with gynocentrism and feminism, is not that they focus on female hardships or female sacrifice or female needs, but that they focus solely on those things and ignore male needs, male sacrifice and male hardships throughout history and in the present day. The problem with female superiority, is that without fail those that purport to claim women are superior, will selectively report only those strengths women have over men and consistently ignore or dismiss any evidence of male strengths and male value.

There is never any genuine recognition of all of the facts by either feminists or female supremacists, just the facts that are convenient. Ultimately it is one-sided gynocentric reductionist thinking, that consistently leads people to perceive only one side of the biological and social equation when it comes to the sexes. They ignore the duality of biological value and the duality of sacrifice between the sexes. The manosphere must try not to repeat those same mistakes.

I have a final point to make on Karen’s video regarding her initial comments on fatherhood and the long developmental period of human offspring and her suggestion that it is has been the monogamous egalitarian model that has allowed prolonged development in humans, rather than paternal investment alone. I would suggest that monogamy and the levels of paternal investment in offspring go hand in hand. Monogamy reduces paternity uncertainty, which in turn results in greater paternal investment. The more monogamous pair bonding there is in a population, the greater the levels of paternal investment.

Yes a species can have paternal investment in offspring in a polygamous community, but it will be at a reduced level in comparison to a monogamous arrangement. Whilst some people beat a drum that humans are a polygamous species, we are actually only weakly polygamous and monogamy has been present to a substantial degree in both our prehistory and in our current societies. We don’t really have one fixed mating mode we cannot escape from and human courtship is heavily influenced by culture and has been for many tens of thousands of years. Indeed cultural practices of marriage with only low levels of polygyny22, are found to go far back into our hunter-gatherer prehistory.

Even in polygamous societies, only a small fraction of the population is actually engaging in polygamy and a substantial degree of monogamy still takes place in these societies. One only has to ask why monogamy has become so widespread, if we are supposedly so hardwired to be polygamous (as some claim). I could go into further detail on this point, but I will leave the discussion on polygamy in humans for another time and return to Karen’s discussion. The reason I expanded on this point, is because there are some people that incorrectly assume monogamy has had no impact on our evolution and that monogamy is a modern invention. This is scientifically and factually incorrect.

Karen discussed in her video, an example of the marmoset monkey in which only one pair is mating in the group and the father invests more than the mother in raising offspring. Karen suggested that the failure of the marmoset to acquire a long period of maturation and exhibit high intelligence, shows that fatherhood alone is not sufficient to lengthen the developmental period of offspring. My response to that, is that only one marmoset male in the group is invested in raising offspring and the rest of the male and female population is providing intermittent alloparental care. Whilst paternal investment within the mating marmoset pair is high relative to the maternal investment, paternal investment in the population as a whole is actually relatively low in comparison to humans (It is also worth pointing out that the paternal investment of a male marmoset is not even close to that of a human male, which I am sure Karen understands.).

In a human population there are many mating pairs (not just one) and thus much higher overall numbers of fathers investing in the raising of their offspring (rather than just one lucky marmoset male with one lucky marmoset female). Greater numbers of monogamous mating pairs, provide the opportunity to have a slower individual rate of reproduction to replace the population. The paternal investment in offspring, harnesses this opportunity to provide the conditions to support a longer developmental period for offspring.

So I would agree that both the monogamous egalitarian model and paternal investment across the population (outside of just one exclusive mating pair), are both involved in lengthening the human developmental period. However it is paternal investment that has actually directly played a role in human development and allowing it to be lengthened. The spread of monogamy just permitted paternal investment to become widespread. That clarification is important to add to what Karen said in her video. Fatherhood is particularly important in human adolescent development and particularly important in respect to raising sons whom fully mature at an older age. These realities indicate that fatherhood is indeed connected to supporting the longer development of our offspring (Particularly with teenage sons!).



In closing I would like to draw attention to the massive fires that are currently burning across Australia. Firefighters whom are mostly men, have been battling these blazes whilst the country has been enjoying holidays and New Year’s Eve. It is funny how society on the one hand really needs men in a national emergency, but at the same time the mainstream media has no problem in telling men they are obsolete23 and telling people why it is okay to hate men24. Despite men risking their lives fighting the fires, feminists somehow think it is appropriate to make claims from highly questionable feminist “research”, that some men will come home from the fires to beat up their wives (yes you read correctly, watch this link25 and this link26). We live in a culture and a society, that is dominated by an authoritarian feminist ideology that spreads outright hatred toward men with impunity and attempts to demonise men even when they risk their lives for their community. That is how threatened feminism is by male value. Any expression and recognition of the good men do for society, even when men are risking their lives in a national emergency, is to be quashed by feminists.

Society does not want men to know their own value, because if they did this whole parasitic gynocentric system of exploitation would grind to a halt. It is the fear of men discovering their own intrinsic value as human beings that drives male disposability in society, remember that.

I will finish this article with a link27 to a speech by Charlie Chaplin. He made this speech in a movie called The Great Dictator in 1940 during World War 2. With our growing geopolitical tensions with China, Russia and now Iran, remember this speech. It is as relevant today for men, as it was back then. Make no mistake, war is a men’s issue and may become the greatest issue men face this century. The rejection of male disposability and the recognition of men as human beings with their own humanity, is the antidote to war and violence. The machine minds of our world will stop at nothing to snuff that out of men’s hearts and lead men astray with false promises of glory. Take heed of that warning.

“You are not machines, you are not cattle, you are men!”- Charlie Chaplin, The Great Dictator, 1940

How men perceive themselves will determine the fate of their lives and also the fate of the world. Reflect on that reality and what I have written in this article.




The Nature Of Male Value And Our Gynocentric Culture Part One

This article is dedicated to the multiple men that I have known who have committed suicide or attempted to commit suicide. Men always have value and something to live for, even when they think they don’t, or how they are treated by society convinces them they don’t.



The value of a human life is something that is not truly quantifiable. There is no one answer to the question on how much a human life is worth. It is a reality though, that each human life cannot be replaced and is in a sense priceless. The consciousness of a human being is unique to each individual human life. This article will be focusing on the biological value of men, but it is important to remember that all human life transcends biological value. We do not treat the disabled with less dignity or with no dignity because they are disabled. We understand that the value of human life that really has the ultimate meaning to us, does not come from the utility of the human body.

Every man and woman regardless of their abilities, has a unique a mind and a personality that conveys a unique contribution to the world. That is what we really miss when people die and that is what really forms the basis of human love. We acknowledge the real basis of the value of human life, when we consider brain death to be the death of a person. It is consciousness and not the utility of the body that ultimately matters to us. There will not be another person like you again. Our consciousness and the essence of who we are cannot be replaced.

We often do not realise the value of what we have until it is gone. Death can clarify the relative importance of many things for people (including me). A number of years ago, I watched two parents bury both their two sons. It was the saddest thing I have ever witnessed and understandably the parents were inconsolable. The sons died in an accident on their holiday in their mid-20s in the prime of their life. All of the hopes and dreams that their parents had for them, died that day. I can still remember the horrible wailing of the mother and the father, as two coffins proceeded to leave the church. I can still recall the upset I felt seeing someone I went to school with and knew had a promising future, being moved away in a coffin right past me and the finality of it all. You do not forget a tragic experience like that.

What do you say to parents that have just lost not one, but both of their two sons in a horrible accident? They can never be replaced. How many families have lost their sons at too early an age from suicide, from the effects of divorce, from fighting a war or fighting fires, or from an early accidental death or illness? The pain and sense of loss cannot be measured. Whilst we certainly can create abstract ways of measuring the value of both men and women in biological terms or otherwise, ultimately the value of human life is greater than the sum of its parts. The pain people feel from losing people they love, can be a powerful reminder of that reality.

Ultimately whether you are a man or a woman at the bottom of the distribution of utility and biological value, remember that your value as a human being transcends your utility and your biology. As I have said before, civilisation requires that we move beyond valuing human life based on its utility and biological characteristics. How quickly would civilisation descend into violent chaos if we began murdering the sick, the disabled and the elderly? Not long. We have seen how that turns out and the genocidal horrors that have unfolded from such thinking. Civilisation requires a basic unconditional level of respect for the sanctity of all human life, in order for it to function and be sustained.

So whilst I will be discussing the biological value of men in detail, please take the time to reflect on the reality that the value of human life is more than just what comes from biological value. Please take the time to reflect on how lucky you are to be alive and to simply exist, because we will all be dead one day. All of our problems and ideologies will mean little in our minds, when we face death in our final moments and are fighting for our last breath and we consider how tiny the length of our passage in this universe actually is. This is a large article and is divided into two parts, part one and part two. There is a great deal to discuss because of the amount of distortion of the truth and of the facts surrounding male value. I make no apologies for the length of this article, men deserve it.


The Biological Equality Of The Sexes:

In order for a phenotype of an organism to have value in biological terms, it must ensure sufficient copies of the genome that encoded it persist in future generations. A phenotype that results in greater copies of a genome existing after a thousand generations (or any other number of generations) than an alternative phenotype, is of a greater biological value to that genome and will be conserved to a greater degree. Biological value must also be defined in reference to the organisms investing in a phenotype and the payoff they receive from that investment.

Sex is a phenotype and parents invest in the male and female phenotype by producing male and female offspring. After any number of generations, each sex produces an exactly equal total number of copies of their parent’s genome. Consequently, males and females have exactly equal biological value. This is why there is an almost equal sex ratio of males and females produced at birth in the human population and many other species. It does not pay for parents to invest in one sex over the other, because neither sex has greater biological value for the parents investing in them. This reality is explained by Fishers principle1. I have described the underlying evolutionary framework behind the equal biological value of the sexes at length in part one of Gynocentrism And The Value Of Men2.

It is telling how gynocentric our society has become, when even significant numbers of people in the manosphere are convinced that women are more biologically valuable to the species because they have a uterus and think biology revolves solely or primarily around reproduction. If this truly were the case, then there would be a selective advantage from producing daughters instead of sons and female infants would outnumber male infants in the population. If reproduction was the sole or primary source of biological value, then humans and our hominid and mammalian ancestors would have eventually reverted back to asexual reproduction, or would not have evolved to sexually reproduce at all. Alternatively, our ancestors could have evolved to sexually reproduce as hermaphrodites (where all individuals of a population could gestate the fetus and fertilise each other’s eggs), or at the very least would have devolved into small mammals with high rates of reproduction. None of this has happened.

As I discussed in part one of Gynocentrism And The Value Of Men, the empirical evidence, established evolutionary theory and our evolutionary history, all point in the opposite direction to the assertion that women are the more biologically valuable sex because of their uterus and that reproduction is the overwhelming driver of evolutionary success. We have literally had hundreds of millions of years for a selective preference for the female sex to win out and yet it has not. Why? Reproduction is one event in a series of events required to propagate the genome and the uterus is just one organ required to ensure continuation of the lineage. In the complex two sex biological system our genome encodes to propagate itself, there are many other requirements that must be met to ensure continuation of the genome aside from reproduction and the uterus. Reproductive success does not ensure evolutionary success and they are not synonymous. I discussed all of this in detail particularly in part one of Gynocentrism And The Golden Uterus3 and in my further writings in part one and two on Gynocentrism And The Value Of Men.


The Sex Differences In Biological Value:

The biological value of men extends far beyond just their reproductive and genetic value in allowing sexual reproduction to occur. Males exist in our species in the form they do and contain half the human genome, precisely as a result of having equivalent biological value of their own and because reproduction is not the sole or exclusive source of biological value. The difference between males and females is not in the degree of overall biological value of each sex. The two key sexual differences in biological value, lie in the different manifestation of biological value in each sex and in the distribution of biological value among individuals of each sex. The sexes do not have to be the same to be equal in overall biological value and they do not have to be unequal in biological value to be different. This is a reality that feminists who assert that the sex differences are entirely due to socialisation and female supremacists that assert innate female biological superiority (and yes some people in the manosphere strangely hold the same belief), both fail to appreciate and understand. These principles can be illustrated with two simple analogies from modern life-

  1. Two houses can be of the same monetary value and be vastly different.
  1. The total wealth of two families can be equal, but the distribution of that wealth between individuals in each family can be different.

Whilst it would wrong to simply assert the lack of a uterus makes men less valuable than women, it would certainly be correct to identify this basic sex difference, as the ultimate source of the majority of all other biological sex differences. This would include the sex differences in the manifestation and distribution of male biological value compared to female biological value.

The greater rate of reproduction of the male as a result of lower reproductive investment, ensures the male population has a greater variance in biological value than the female population. The individuals that produce the greatest numbers of copies of their parent’s genome are male. The individuals that produce the lowest numbers of copies of their parent’s genome are male. Whilst feminists may be envious of the apex males in our society that are at the top of the social ladder that have the greatest evolutionary success, it is about time we showed some compassion for the forgotten men at the bottom of the social ladder (like the male homeless). The true value of a human life goes beyond biological value and all men regardless of their inherent biology, are deserving of being treated with dignity and respect. We afford this treatment to women and we can do the same for men.

Whilst the distribution of biological value between individuals is different for men and women, there is no difference in the total and mean biological value of each sex. Greater numbers of individual females may pass on their parent’s genome, but the males that pass on their parent’s genome do so at a greater rate per individual than the females do and consequently leave behind more genome copies per individual male than individual female. Despite this pattern, it is a mathematical reality that neither sex as a whole, can pass on more copies of their parent’s genome than the other sex.

Men and women face different sets of selective pressures to propagate their genes as a result of only one sex being capable of gestation and this consequently results in different manifestations of biological value. Men have faced sexual and natural selective pressures women have not faced and vice versa. It would be correct to say that solely in reproductive terms, females convey greater value to the species than males. It would not be correct to say that then means females are more biologically valuable than males overall. Men and their male hominid ancestors have been shaped by millions of years of evolution to convey a survival value to the species that women cannot match. If women are the rate limiting factor of reproduction, men are the rate limiting factor of survival. Survival does impact evolutionary success, not just reproduction.

Investment in both survival and reproduction together drive evolutionary success. Activities related to survival and reproduction can often conflict with each other. Activities related to survival can often involve risks and hardships and take away energy and resources, that may conflict with the requirements of pregnancy and early child rearing. In the modern world this is less of a problem of course. However this basic life history trade-off4 between investment in survival versus investment in reproduction, has existed for most of our evolutionary history and the evolutionary history of our ancestors. We evolved under conditions without birth control, mechanisation, electricity or modern medicine and it is a relative luxury that today the sexes are free to live differently to the paradigm our ancestors lived in for millions of years. The reality is that given the harsh selective pressures of our evolutionary past, there was a selective advantage to developing two sexes that were physiologically and psychologically adapted to specialise in either reproduction or survival, rather than being generalists that are far less effective at both.

There is especially a selective advantage, when the two sexes work together synergistically to combine their specialist abilities to perpetuate their lineage in a community, as two components in one biological system. Evolutionary gains that cannot be achieved alone by the individual males and females within a community, can be attained when males and females work cooperatively and synergistically with each other within a functional social system. This property of systems is called emergence5 and is something which is overlooked when we reduce all of biology down to the rate of reproduction and individual reproductive success and ignore the multitude of other factors driving evolution.

Specialisation of function and the development of systems that contain components that specialise in various functions, drives efficiency. These factors have driven the evolution of multicellular life, it is why your body has multiple systems (respiratory, circulatory system etc) specialising in particular functions. It is why our economy and the superorganism known as civilisation, is driven by specialisation to maximise economic and social efficiency. Why have only one sex gestate the fetus? Efficiency from specialisation. Why have men been specifically sexually and naturally selected to contribute to the survival of their family and community? Efficiency and specialisation. Having males that contribute to survival, allows for greater investment by females in reproduction and vice versa. Having one sex specialise in survival and another sex specialise in reproduction, maximises the survival and reproductive output of the species. When men and women pool their biological capital together cooperatively in a community, this dynamic results in an emergent evolutionary success.


What Male Value Looks Like:

Male biological value does of course have a reproductive component to it and women to at least some degree, have contributed to the survival of their family and community. Whilst there is of course overlap between the sexes, with both sexes contributing to reproduction and survival, substantial sex differences do exist in their relative contributions to survival and reproduction. Each sex has its own set of adaptations that they have acquired over evolution as a result of one sex investing more in reproduction and the other sex investing more in survival. Male biological value is focused on contributing either directly or indirectly to survival. Male biological value and the male contribution to survival, manifests itself in four main ways:

  1. Competition: Men are by nature competitive, they are driven to strive for status and compete. The result of that competition often leads to innovation and social and economic developments that further the survival of society. Of course we only hear of the negative and destructive aspects of male competition and never about the positive aspects of male competition. The reality is that we would not have a functioning economy or even civilisation without competition. It is also worth reflecting on the basic fact that the world is a harsh place and playing it safe and playing it nice, does not always led to the required outcome. Even the more destructive aspects of male competition can have a positive output when applied correctly.
  1. Collaboration: Men cooperate with other men to develop, run, maintain and protect civilisation and to make the discoveries and drive the innovation and exploration to further civilisation. It is frequently overlooked that the “patriarchy” or the social dominance hierarchy that men live and work in, functions only because men cooperate with each other. Patriarchy is not all about competition. Men compete but they do so within a system of male cooperation and within established rules and norms. Men work in teams in sport, in business, in the military, in science, in emergency services and a multitude of other domains. The combined efforts of thousands of men have built cities, civilisations, all of our modern infrastructure, won wars and driven humanity into space.
  1. Protection and Provision For Family: Men contribute to the survival of the family. Men have been sexually selected to protect and provide for their progeny and partner. For most of human history and prehistory, male provision and protection has frequently meant the difference between their progeny and their partner living or dying, or at least thriving versus struggling to survive.
  1. Paternal Investment: Men contribute to the raising of children. This is frequently overlooked in our modern culture which pretends that fatherhood conveys no benefit, despite the overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.

All of these four dimensions of male value produce an enormous emergent benefit when the value of individual males is pooled collectively. An emergent benefit that civilisation depends on for its continued existence. Think for a moment about the combined intergenerational consequences of all the fatherless households in Western civilisation, on the future social stability and the economy of our countries. The description of these four dimensions, is by no means exhaustive and I could go into much greater detail describing all the ways men contribute to the survival of the species and civilisation.

The reality is that males are driven by testosterone and other factors to strive for status and to engage in behaviours that enhance the survival of their families, their communities and their civilisation. Men have acquired physical and psychological traits and developed specific biological strengths from a combination of sexual and natural selective pressures, to contribute to survival. These are biological facts and no matter how hard ideologues attempt to smear men and demonise them, the good in men and the value in men will keep rising to the surface.

Of course contributing to survival is not exclusive to men and neither is contributing to reproduction exclusive to women. However the reality is that men do contribute to community survival to a much greater degree than women, just as women contribute a great deal more to reproduction. The difference in the investment each sex makes in survival and reproduction is interconnected and interdependent. The male investment in survival supports and allows the greater female investment in reproduction and vice versa. These are realities that feminists will never acknowledge: Women in general do not make up the majority of workers that are doing the bulk of the risky, hazardous and dirty work, the work done in remote locations or night work and working the 50+ hour a week jobs. Despite more than 50 years of feminist social engineering, none of the following realities have changed:

-Men design, build, maintain, renovate and demolish the vast bulk of the thousands of physical structures (buildings, infrastructure, housing, roads, rail etc) that comprise our towns and cities.

-Men run the vast bulk of our essential infrastructure that supplies our towns and cities with electricity, water, gas and petrol.

-Men design, build and repair the majority of our machines, cars, planes, trains, boats, spacecraft and electrical gadgets etc.

-Men are running and maintaining our farms, abattoirs, fishing industry and dams and making sure our towns and cities remain adequately provisioned with food and water.

-Men are running and maintaining our oil rigs, mines, refineries, factories and warehouses.

-Men are the majority of our plumbers, electricians, mechanics and technicians.

-Men run the vast bulk of our waste management that ensures our towns and cities remain clean and healthy. Men make sure we have a working sewage system, recycling, hard rubbish and garbage collection.

-Men ensure the continuous transport of goods between towns and cities. Unseen men work on our container ships, on freight trains and on planes shipping goods all over the planet. They are on the road driving our trucks and keeping our supermarkets stocked with food.

-Men are the majority of our military, coast guard, police, firefighters and emergency service workers.

-Men remain the spearhead of innovation. Men are the majority of our inventors, Nobel laureates and Fields medallists. The major technological innovations, scientific discoveries, the majority of patents and the majority of the political, economic and social developments of our time, are the result of men. It was men that invented the light bulb, the aeroplane, the car, the radio, the television, the modern computer, developed the internet, developed most of our machinery and electrical gadgets and discovered antibiotics etc. It is male genius that is the reason why we have a population of 7 billion people living in electrified cities and not a couple of 100 million people living in caves. The reality is that the bulk of the intellectually gifted are men (men dominate the upper ranges of the IQ distribution), just as the bulk of the strongest and fittest people are men. Male intellect is a reality that feminist infested academia has tried to ignore, whilst asserting men and boys are somehow defective. I do not know how long this video6 will remain up before it is taken down by feminist and sjw censors, but every person that has been told men and boys are stupid and bought into that lie, should watch it.

-Men are the majority of our leaders. They are the majority of our entrepeneurs, business leaders, thought leaders, leading scientists and politicians. Men have largely been responsible for starting the majority of new industries and academic disciplines (and subdisciplines), including social media platforms on the internet now taken over by feminists. Men are prepared to take massive risks, take massive responsibilities, present new revolutionary ideas that do not conform to established peer consensus at the risk of ridicule and work long hours often at the expense of the rest of their lives. This is the reality that feminists will not accept when it comes to acknowledging the cost of leadership on the individual and the personal cost of extreme feats of creative brilliance and the relative dearth of women in such pursuits.

-We could then look at the male contribution to music, writing, art, drama, philosophy and sport. I do not think I have to list the names of every man and their contribution. Imagine if there was no Shakespeare, no John Lennon, no Michelangelo and no Socrates. Men have shaped our culture in ways that have lasted thousands of years (like Jesus Christ and Buddha). Men have also invented new forms of art, music, drama, philosophy and sport and our society is much richer, more developed and more civilised because of their contribution. The male contribution to these areas in the last 50 years is staggering on its own.

-Men pay the bulk of government taxes and are the bulk of our full-time employed workforce. Men work in industries essential for maintaining GDP and that support service sector industries and government sector occupations the majority of women work in. Men either directly or indirectly finance the bulk of female consumer spending, by either providing women with the household finances directly, or indirectly through government welfare, or by working in industries that make female dominated occupations economically and technologically possible.

-Finally men are our fathers and are critical to raising physically and psychologically healthy children, with a prosperous and bright future. Fatherlessness and the breakdown of the family in the last 50 years, has done nothing but provide ample evidence for the importance of fathers.

The reality is that these differences in representation between men and women that I have just described, do at least in part reflect innate physical and psychological strengths men have over women in terms of their biology. Just as I mentioned in the previous description on the dimensions of male value, this list could be pages long and we could go through a similar list for men with our prehistory. Think for a moment about the huge impact the male contribution to survival in our history and prehistory has had on our evolutionary success and the capacity to pass on our genes.

Men have done and continue to do the work that women either cannot do or do not want to do. That is the unspoken taboo which our gynocentric society will not acknowledge until it is faced with a crisis of unimaginable proportions from placing female well-being above male well-being for decades and throwing men under the bus. Men are not superior to women and women are not superior to men, but we need to recognise that each sex has its own unique contribution to society and respect the value of both sexes and not just pedestalise women.

How many women are going to work in a sewage treatment plant? Let us be honest here. How many women are going to work on powerlines and in mines? How many women are going to work in garbage collection? How many women are going to risk their lives in actual combat or fighting fires? Men often do these things for their family and for their society, with little recognition or reward and while they are being told they are obsolete7. Many of the men keeping society running are invisible to society, but if they stepped away from their jobs for just one day, society would grind to a halt. That is the scary reality that is one of the factors that drives society out of fear, to con men into believing they have no value when it is the exact opposite.

The simple reality is that men do have strengths relative to women, just as women have strengths relative to men and men do things that women cannot or will not do, just as women do things men cannot or will not do. This man-hating culture does its very best to either ignore, downplay or attack these realities when it does not conform to the gynocentric overton window of female superiority. I could go through the list of valuable physical and psychological attributes that men possess to a greater degree than women, but that should not be necessary.

Yes in certain traits men are better equipped than women and can engage in particular activities with greater performance. We can also say the same about women in certain respects in relation to men and yet only that reality is politically correct to say in this gynocentric culture. Men are not allowed to be better than women at anything, but women are allowed to be better than men at everything. You can see this double standard play out socially on the street8 and even politically9 with President Donald Trump (the supposed “misogynist”). It is socially taboo to state men are better than women at anything of meaningful value in this gynocentric culture, which revolves around worshipping anything female and belittling men.

Whether people like it or not, there are certain biological realities we cannot deny and if we do continue to deny them, reality will eventually assert itself at our peril and threaten the economic and social future of society itself. Whatever social and legal barriers that may have held women back, have been removed and women have had at least 50 years to make use of all of the same opportunities men have had. Women and girls have also benefited from numerous affirmative action programs and policies in employment and education, that have placed women and girls above men and boys. Despite all of that and the massive preferential treatment women and girls have been given for decades, women have not overtaken men in any of the areas I described earlier and there is no sign that is going to change. We need to accept biological reality at some point. The sexes are biologically equal in overall value and equal before the law, but the sexes are also different. Neither sex is superior or inferior, just different.

If we want to understand and identify male biological value, we don’t have to go through the long list of valuable physical and psychological attributes men have in greater abundance than women (again for the insecure nit-pickers, women have their own set of strengths). Just open your eyes and look at the world and reflect on what happens if men disappeared for a day and we had a day without men. If male strengths offend some women, they may want to consider that women at the very least have played a role in sexually selecting men with such strengths and that ironically women have partly themselves to blame if they are offended by male competence. You selected such males as mates for millions of years! Male competence is attractive to women and sometimes like female beauty, it can intimidate some members of the other sex (and sometimes members of the same sex, like feminists who seem to have a problem with both male competence and female beauty).

There are those that will assert that technological automation and robotics will make men redundant. The same logic can be applied to women. Technology can make women just as redundant as men. Artificial uteri and artificially induced male eggs, can eventually replace female reproduction. Artificial intelligence, automation and robotics can also replace female dominated work. However this reasoning fails to account for a regular pattern observed throughout history. With all technological change new work has emerged. Men have shifted to new work and new economies multiple times over the decades and centuries.

Rather than technology making men redundant, men will simply contribute to the survival and prosperity of their communities in other ways as they have done before. Men have demonstrated a robust capacity to shift to new activities throughout history and often have been the ones pioneering new lines of work and new economies and industries. Women have been the ones following male ingenuity and pioneering, not the other way around. The capacity of men to adapt to a shifting environment and still contribute to their community, has been demonstrable throughout history. Even today despite all of this “end of men” female supremacist chest beating, we can see that it is men that comprise the majority of those that are at the spearhead of new lines of work. Regardless as to what the future may hold, as I mentioned at the start of this article, the value of human life for both men and women is greater than either their survival or reproductive utility.

Please continue now to part two of this article.




Gynocentrism And The Demographic Implosion Of Western Civilisation

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 wilful 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.










How To Destroy A Society

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.”21

A quote 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.




The Feminist Clown World And The Movie Joker


Warning: This article may contain spoilers. I have tried to minimise them as much as possible.


By now some people may be aware of the “controversy”1 surrounding the recent movie Joker2. This is a manufactured controversy because someone (Todd Phillips) decided to make a film that challenged the feminist left-wing narrative about toxic masculinity and the white male (the feminist left’s scapegoat for every problem). Our entertainment industry and particularly Hollywood, has been peddling an anti-male agenda that there is something wrong with men and masculinity for many years now. So naturally when a movie is made that encourages people to begin questioning the narrative put forward by our media that men are inherently evil and toxic, there is a backlash from the elitist feminist establishment.


Rotten Tomatoes as of the 12th of October 2019, shows a public rating of 90% for Joker and a critic rating of 68%3. Judging from the names of the publications that are rating it rotten or one/two stars, the movie has managed to annoy the right people. At approximately the same time as the Joker was released, the Batwoman tv series has been released with an 11% public rating on Rotten Tomatoes4 compared with 72% from the critics. There has been an ideological agenda within the entertainment industry for some time now, to invade any genre that appeals predominately to men and make it about empowering women. Science fiction in particular has been targeted. This is a deliberate attempt by feminists to control the culture and ensure gynocentrism pervades every corner of society. As we saw with The Last Jedi, the feminist influence in the film industry is not just satisfied with making movies that revolve around female empowerment at the expense of a good story, they must also make sure that their female protagonists beat and humiliate men.


People are rapidly getting tired of feminist identity politics and it is showing in the public ratings of “woke” films, tv shows and video games and also in the declining purchase of products, video games and merchandise from companies that put feminist ideology before the customer. People want to be entertained and served. People are not paying to be lectured to. Men in particular want to buy products and watch entertaining content without being told they are toxic because they happen to have penis. This will be learnt the hard way no doubt- Go woke go broke.


We live in a world where slogans like the “future is female”5 is promoted in politics and where mainstream media organisations publish articles discussing “why can’t we hate men”6. We live in a world where women can publish books7 and articles8 about the end of men, with the full support of publishers and the mainstream media. We live in a world where women receive support to run multiple public debates (see this link9 and this link10) to affirm that the male half of the human race is obsolete11 in buildings that men constructed and while men keep their lights on at night, their water running and the rest of the essential infrastructure and economy operating.


At the same time all of this is occurring, men are told we live in a patriarchy that oppresses women. We are told that men are privileged and women are victimised and how much worse women have it in society. This is the modern feminist clown world- Women claim they are oppressed in a patriarchy while women write books, articles and have debates about men being obsolete and why we should hate men. Let us honestly ask which sex is really privileged here? The sex that can openly and publicly denigrate the other sex by calling them obsolete and encouraging hatred toward them, while the other sex is told to respect them in domestic violence messaging and government funded ads no matter what. It is women that are privileged and feminist ideology is merely psychological projection by a group of entitled feminist women.


Apparently men do not have a right to exist or have a future in this society, but remember it is men that are privileged. That is of course perfectly logically consistent for feminists, because this is the society feminism has created. Men make up the majority of our homeless, suicides and workplace deaths. They have a considerably shorter life expectancy than women and yet receive substantially less health funding for their health issues. Boys are falling far behind girls in an education system that prioritises girls needs and young men are being shut out of employment opportunities because of selective hiring and quotas that blatantly discriminate against men and favour women. Then there is the bias against men in family court and divorce that men experience. The list goes on and on.


Feminism has always been about dehumanising men to exploit them and using a false and deceitful narrative of victimhood and centuries of fictious “patriarchal” oppression to justify and rationalise that exploitation. The one constant in the feminist mind is simply this- Women matter and men don’t. What appears to be conflicted views of the world i.e. women claiming they are being oppressed versus women claiming the future is female and men being obsolete, is really just two faces of the same bigoted gynocentric mind.


The Joker has been attacked because it challenges the assertion by the left and explicitly from feminist ideology, that we live in a patriarchy that puts male well-being above female well-being. Joker shines a light on male disposability12 and the complete lack of regard society has for the suffering and marginalisation of men and boys. But what the media really finds so irritating about the film, is that it exposes the lie that male violence has its roots in toxic masculinity and the patriarchy. Men are apparently violent because of toxic masculinity and male privilege. No other factor is at play and to utter such claims is heresy to the feminist ideological orthodoxy that now governs and runs our society. That is the message we have shoved down our throats from our domestic violence industry on a regular basis and by our elitist feminist media, governments and institutions.


There is a powerful message in the Joker- Much of male violence does not come from toxic masculinity, but from a toxic society that treats men and boys like they are garbage. A great deal of male violence is a reflection of the contempt society has for men and its complete disregard for male well-being and suffering. That is the embarrassing truth the feminist establishment does not want to acknowledge, because they have contributed to that societal mindset. This societal mentality of apathy toward male suffering, was captured in a part of the movie when Arthur Fleck (The Joker) says:


“If it was me dying on the sidewalk, you’d walk right over me. I pass you everyday and you don’t notice me! But these guys, what, because Thomas Wayne went and cried about them on TV?” (The wealthy men on the train that beat him up get sympathy, he does not)”13


Men are expected to perform and conform. When men perform and conform, society cares about such men to the extent that they are useful to society (like Thomas Wayne and his employees). Men are regarded as human doings in this gynocentric culture and not as human beings. Concern for male well-being is conditional on the utility they provide to society. Concern for female well-being is unconditional. Women are supported without having to do anything, they just have to exist. When men do not perform they don’t exist to society. When men do not conform, even when they are doing no harm to themselves or others, they are demonised. When men neither conform or perform, then people call them “obsolete” and dehumanise them. We don’t see articles about women being obsolete or having to “woman up” if they do not perform for society, or books and slogans questioning women’s very right to exist and have a future. That is the difference between how society regards men and how society regards women. Men are regarded as human doings and women are regarded as human beings. It is the gender empathy gap14. Feminism has exploited this dynamic from the very beginning15 to further prioritise female well-being at the expense of men.


Our modern gynocentric society puts men in a box. As long as men perform for society and conform to their role as an exploitable utility, they are allowed a tiny space to live out their existence. There is no room for men that want to be treated as human beings. The moment men express any sign of vulnerability as Arthur did and the moment men cease being a useful utility for society, then society attacks them and literally kicks them while they are down (as Arthur was on the train).


Men like Arthur can expect no support and general apathy toward their issues from women, as we saw with Arthur’s disinterested female counsellor and dismissive single mother. Starved of any compassion from the opposite sex, Arthur has to imagine in his mind a woman having genuine concern for his well-being, expressing any form of affection for who he is and noticing him (as we later discover the relationship was all in his head). In the real world women expect male strangers in society to take responsibility for the collective well-being of women they do not know. We see this in feminist movements like HeForShe, the promotion of male support for breast cancer awareness at major male sporting events and public domestic violence messaging targeted at men etc. There is no such mass call from society and our institutions and establishment, for women to do the same for men and the issues they face.


There is a clear asymmetry in the empathy women display toward men and the empathy men display toward women. This is not speculation or unsubstantiated. The lack of empathy women display toward men relative to the greater empathy men display toward women, can be directly observed16. So I have to laugh when it is claimed women are the more empathetic sex, whilst they write books and have debates about men being obsolete and write articles about it being acceptable to hate men. What a joke! The joker was right, the world is getting crazier.


Arthur was different and did not perform or conform to the approved standards of being a male utility for society. For that he was mugged, fired, betrayed, mocked, publicly humiliated and beaten. The Joker gave us a glimpse of what life is like for the growing male underclass in our modern society, that the elitist feminist establishment pretends does not exist and that they have wilfully and knowingly created. This substantial cohort of men remain mostly invisible to feminists who are fixated on the tiny fraction of men at the top of society. When feminists cannot ignore their existence, these men are predictably cast by feminists as losers, threatening, creepy, violent, misogynist and dangerous.


Men can’t be victims and men can’t be vulnerable according to feminists, so they must be classed as a threat or their issues watered down and trivialised. When they can’t demonise or trivialise such men and their issues, then feminists and society attempt to reframe the narrative that women or some other identity, is the greater victim. We can already see publications17 scrambling to try and spin the Joker to be anything but a story about male vulnerability. This is the same mentality behind remarks by politicians like Hillary Clinton that “women have always been the primary victims of war”18, , despite the millions upon millions of men that were forcibly drafted into war and died for women, their families and their country and the hundreds of war cemeteries filled with dead men. Our gynocentric society and feminists in particular, do not want to acknowledge or accept or feel any concern for male vulnerability or suffering. This is the level of denial of reality people will stoop to, to avoid any feeling of compassion for men.


When feminists can’t demonise, trivialise or come up with a competing victimhood narrative, we then hear from feminists that “patriarchy hurts men too”. However we never hear feminists acknowledge they are funded by (like the millions of dollars our governments spend on domestic violence against women) and are a part of the very “patriarchal” system they are supposedly dismantling, or that this system clearly prioritises female well-being above male well-being (as we can see from the numerous policies and programs in education, employment, law and health for women and girls and the comparative lack of such policies and programs for men and boys).


Have feminists ever bothered to help out the majority of the homeless and unemployed that happen to be male as Arthur was? Have feminists ever bothered to ask men if they have been abused as children as Arthur was? Have feminists ever bothered to consider supporting the majority of victims of violence like Arthur on the train, which are actually male not female? Have feminists ever bothered to consider how important fathers are to boys and the young men they become, as was the case for Arthur? Have feminists ever asked men about the hardships they experience as men and really attempted to listen to them, as Arthur was seeking from his disinterested female counsellor? Feminism is solely interested in women and the claim the movement is about gender equality is a lie.


We see in the movie the impact fatherlessness and single motherhood had on Arthur and the extreme abuse and neglect he suffered because of it. This film is red pilling society and will continue to red pill audiences. The film has challenged the feminist assertion all men are privileged and has shone a light on male disposability. Joker has exposed the role of our elitist feminist mainstream media, governments and institutions, in contributing to male violence by marginalising men, belittling them and promoting hatred toward them. That is why the elitist feminist mainstream media is so upset by the film. They know this film is exposing the truth about men and their experience in our modern man-hating society that feminists have created.
We know a gender empathy gap exists and I will start concluding this article with a quote from Alison Tieman:


“Watched Joker. Not sure what I expected but not that. Big takeaway? Offering forty-five minutes of therapy every month to try to combat the indifference, hatred and social exclusion many men face is useless. We need to fundamentally change our communities.”19


We do need to fundamentally change our communities. It might help if instead of writing books and having debates about men being obsolete and laughing and gloating about men’s suffering, our elitist feminist media and establishment did some self-reflection (particularly women in the media and our institutions) and realised their role in creating the conditions that generate male violence. How about showing some compassion for men and boys and taking some genuine interest in implementing measures to support them like we do for women. How about respecting men and boys as human beings, rather than promoting a message that men and boys are “obsolete” like they are pieces of machinery. How about Hanna Rosin and the women like her that claim men are obsolete, get out of their airconditioned offices and go and pay the families of deceased male war veterans a visit and learn about what men have done for them and society.


I want people to go to the video embedded in this article8 and watch what Hanna Rosin does with her son. Take note of the title of the video as well. Then I want people to pause and reflect on what happens when we raise entire generations of boys in such an environment. Would we consider this acceptable if fathers were doing this to their daughters? How would we react? Be honest. Do we really live in a patriarchy where such behaviour is actually promoted on major media websites? Remember the people that do this to their sons. Do not forget. I will never forget.


If our media, institutions, corporations and governments do not respect men as human beings, show no concern for their well-being, ignore their issues and take measures to exploit, marginalise, humiliate and demonise men for decades, then don’t be surprised if a tiny fraction of men do indeed become monsters. You should be upset because what you have done to successive generations of men and boys is shameful and reprehensible. I am glad you are upset. -Sincerely a white male.




Gynocentrism And The Value Of Men (Part Two)

Please read part one1 of this article before continuing.


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 and the community 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. Any asymmetry 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.



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.




Gynocentrism And The Value Of Men (Part One)

As I discussed in my article on Gynoncentrism And The Golden Uterus1, there is a prevailing assertion in the wider gynocentric culture that women are superior to men. The central tenant 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 making the remark 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 that 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, that 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 link15 for 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 myth men are disappearing, 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 quoted2425 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 studies27 supporting 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:

  1. The number of their offspring that actually survive to sexual maturity and are in a sufficiently healthy condition to reproduce.
  1. The number of offspring their relatives produce and survive to sexual maturity in a healthy condition to reproduce.
  1. 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.



  22. and-women/