The Answer To Feminism Is Not Gynocentric Traditionalism

Dysfunctional Gynocentric Cultural Values Must Go

 

Black Pigeon Speaks (BPS) did a video recently titled, “ONLY Patriarchy Builds Nations * / & other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS”[1]. The video raised a number of pertinent factors to consider in what makes developed civilisations sustainable and in this article I will provide my thoughts on that and where Western society went wrong. As the societal consequences from decades of feminism become more and more apparent, there is a push in some corners of society for a return to gynocentric traditionalism[2].  The answer to feminism is not returning to promoting gynocentric traditionalism, by encouraging chivalry and infantilising women. Gynocentric traditionalism allowed feminism to gain traction in the first place. We got to where we are because we treat men as expendable and we do not hold women accountable for their actions and treat them like they are children. These dysfunctional gynocentric cultural values, have allowed the feminist trojan horse to take over society and have led to the marginalisation of men and boys. This marginalisation of men and boys, will eventually trigger socioeconomic collapse, or the “Fempocalypse” as Karen Straughan coined it[3].

 

As BPS’s video addresses, there is an obvious need for the population of a country to reproduce and developed nations are at risk of dying out because of fertility rates falling below replacement levels. However I would add that investment in survival of the civilisation is just as important. There is no point breeding if there is no properly functioning civilisation, economy and infrastructure etc to support the survival of the population. Men are required for that to a much larger degree than women and always have been. Men are responsible for designing, innovating, building, maintaining, running and leading civilisation and no amount of feminist social engineering over the last 50 years has changed that. Indeed in one of BPS’s other videos[4], he cites research on how only men pay taxes and how this covers what women as a group take out of the system. He is not the only one to point that out either. Even female consumer spending is substantially fuelled by income earned from their male partners and the result of male dominated industries and male driven economic activity and taxes, ensuring the viability of the female dominated service sector and public sector. There is much less money for women to spend and welfare to use, without men participating in the economy.

 

Like the low fertility rate, a silent time bomb is growing every year from the decades of neglect of boys in the education system and the epidemic of fatherlessness. We can see from the plethora of research available, the enormous costs of fatherlessness[5] and the boy crisis in education[6]. These problems are going to have serious economic, financial and social consequences in the coming decades. Male unemployment and crime will skyrocket. These problems will eventually implode our economies into a depression, governments will default as fewer men will be in a position to pay taxes and social cohesion will erode from widespread crime, poverty, broken families and substance abuse. Society will come apart at the seams socially and economically.

 

We have seen what happens to societies when large numbers of men become disenfranchised. It does not end well for the society in question. Revolutions and civil war originate from such conditions and it is something to be avoided. Our civilisation runs because of men. If even one percent of men walked away from society for a day, we would have serious problems. If all men walked away from society for one day, it would collapse. Men are not expendable. It is quite the opposite and we are going to pay an enormous price as a society, if we fail to acknowledge men actually do have value. Feminism, the epidemic of fatherlessness and the boy crisis in education, have all grown in large part precisely because we treat men as expendable and do not care about the consequences that comes from marginalising men and boys. To treat men as expendable is to treat civilisation as expendable. Without healthy,  productive and well-adjusted men that can make use of their potential, there is no future for civilisation.  As I have mentioned before, even if we see men as machines, we understand the need to look after those machines to keep them working for us. If you don’t replace the oil in your car, it won’t last very long. Men are not machines, men are human beings. Looking after them properly requires more than basic parental investment. Men and boys must be treated with respect and compassion.

 

MGTOW is about men living life in their own way and refusing to be expendable. That is a good thing. Why? Because men have value to society and if men value themselves then they protect society and themselves from wasteful sacrifice of male potential. Men going their own way is not antithetical to civilisation. It is quite the opposite. Western civilisation was based around recognising the rights and freedoms of the individual for very good reasons. It is what made the West the success it became. Valuing individuality and respecting the rights and freedoms of the individual, is the basis of a free market economy and a free society. It generates tremendous economic prosperity and drives scientific and social progress and innovation.  These Western principles of valuing individuality and protecting individual rights and freedoms, is a very MGTOW concept. It is the group identity of the feminists and far left, that is antithetical to MGTOW and advanced civilisation. Men naturally contribute to civilisation without coercion. It is literally in our DNA to invent, build, explore, discover, maintain, repair, protect and provide. We find it naturally fulfilling, we do it without coercion.

 

What MGTOW is about, is applying men’s natural gifts and desires to do these things, in ways that are authentic to the man. If anything, MGTOW boosts the prosperity of society by preventing the huge waste that comes with treating men as disposable and preventing men from being exploited and used by a parasitic, corrupt and unsustainable gynocentric social system. MGTOW can instead freely apply their gifts and abilities in ways that are genuinely positive for society and for themselves (These are not automatically mutually exclusive things). There are countless men throughout history that have contributed to the advancement of their society enormously and did not get married or have children. Sir Isaac Newton, Orville and Wilbur Wright, Nikola Tesla, Ludwig van Beethoven and Adam Smith, are just a few of these men. Their scientific discoveries, intellectual and social contributions and technological breakthroughs, still have lasting impacts many years after their deaths on Western civilisation and the world. Getting married and breeding offspring is not the only contributing factor to the continuation of civilisation. Contributions to a civilisations scientific and technological knowledge base and intellectual capital, can be just as important and arguably be an even greater factor in ensuring the longevity of civilisation.

 

If we are going to give women equal rights as a society, then they must be held equally accountable. Otherwise it creates an imbalance that destroys society. Having reciprocity between the sexes is critical not just for individual relationships, but also for society. Treating men as expendable, provides no resistance to groups like feminists emerging and treading on men’s rights and marginalising men and boys. When men are regarded as expendable and you give women equal rights with no accountability, it does not take a genius to predict feminist groups will emerge and take advantage of that and they have.

 

By marginalising men and boys and treating them as expendable, you also reduce fertility rates below replacement levels. When fewer and fewer men have the finances and work status to meet the hypergamous expectations of women, thanks to the impacts of growing up in fatherless households, the boy crisis in education being unaddressed for decades and feminist initiatives like female hiring quotas, fewer and fewer children will be produced. When men are treated as expendable and put through the divorce and family court extortion and exploitation pipeline and women have no obligation to be accountable in relationships and roughly half of marriages end in divorce (the majority of which are initiated by women), many men will understandably start deciding not to marry and have families.

 

If we want a sustainable and prosperous society, we must recognise the value of men and boys and stop treating them as expendable, we must hold women equally accountable to men and encourage individuality over groupthink and identity politics. The parasitic feminist welfare state has to go too, which is something Stefan Molyneux has recently spoken about[7]. Like a parasite, it feeds off male taxpayers and supports female lack of accountability and eventually destroys society. If you regard men as expendable and don’t hold women accountable, such a parasitic system will emerge. These dysfunctional values must go if we want civilisation to continue.

 

Jordan Peterson Is Not A Messiah For Men

 

Unfortunately it is quite often the case that social critics of feminism, ignore the destructive influence of gynocentrism in our culture and society. Whilst I agree with a lot of what Jordan Peterson has to say, he is not the Messiah for men he is made out to be and has a number of serious flaws in his reasoning that cannot be ignored by the men’s movement or the MGTOW community. He is very big on self-responsibility (which we all are in the manosphere), except when it comes to women and girls taking self-responsibility and accountability for their actions toward men and boys. He remains dead silent on that. Responsibility for Jordan appears to be conditional based on your sex being male.

 

Even in the Cathy Newman interview[8], Jordan starts the interview off talking about man-children and then spends the remaining 85% or so of the interview talking to an adult woman and explaining to her that women’s choices have consequences. Despite having a first-hand example right in front of him in that interview, that the problem in society is not men not taking responsibility, but women not taking responsibility for their own actions and choices, he continues to wilfully ignore the elephant in the room like most traditionalists. As Alison Tieman once said[9], “we need to stop blowing smoke up women’s asses”. Exactly! We have to stop shielding women from accountability as a society if we want real change. Men in particular need to stop doing that.

 

His remarks about MGTOW both before and after the half-hearted apology he gave[10], expose his own gynocentric programming. Jordan is a traditionalist. If men are not protecting and providing for women, getting married and raising children, then they are suddenly man babies. There is no scope in Jordan’s gynocentric worldview for men to go a different path in life. There are plenty of men like myself for instance, that have full-time jobs, are independent and self-sufficient. We are men that have chosen not to get married or have children by choice, because of the pathological and predatory nature of the gynocentric societal system we live in. Apparently we are all man babies if we don’t follow his version of what a man is. It has never dawned on Jordan that perhaps taking responsibility involves acknowledging the substantial risks divorce, family court, domestic violence, sexual harassment and sexual assault legislation, feminist policies and the metoo climate, really present to men and not recklessly ignoring or downplaying these risks. That taking responsibility involves making smart and informed decisions and mitigating avoidable and substantive risks from these predatory elements of our gynocentric social system. That perhaps not producing a child in a world that does not respect fatherhood and wilfully ignores major social and economic problems, might be a responsible decision to make until those issues are recognised and addressed. That perhaps supporting men’s organisations, individuals and communities attempting to address these imbalances and who shed light on these issues, instead of pretending they don’t exist, might be taking responsibility and the initiative. It has not dawned on him that the greatest form of responsibility, is to take ownership of your own life and set your own direction in life. That being responsible means being brave enough to go your own way and not take the easy way out by conforming to what someone else’s ideal is of what you should do with your own life.

 

It also is interesting Jordan does not apply his own principles of what a male adult is to the plethora of childless, unmarried single women out there. It never dawned on him, that perhaps men might be avoiding women to increasing degrees, because there is something wrong with women and this culture. Jordan will scrutinise men, feminism, politics, the left and the culture, but never or rarely the elephant in the room- female behaviour and the collective in-group bias of women[11]. We literally have had hundreds of thousands of women in the streets protesting the election of Donald Trump over the last two years, with vagina hats on their heads, because a candidate with a vagina did not get elected President. I am not a sycophant of Trump, but I find the two year temper tantrum after his election tiresome. Jordan Peterson frequently skirts and avoids criticising or discussing the role of women in creating multiple generations of fatherless children and how women do to a substantive degree use the legal system as a weapon against men, particularly in divorce, family court and false allegations of rape, domestic violence and sexual harassment. It is the old saying in action, “to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise”.

 

Quite often in his interviews, talks and lectures, he shows a reverence for femininity and has great difficulty by his own admission when speaking with Camille Paglia in their interview[12], in holding women accountable for their actions toward men (particularly crazy women). He is all for men taking responsibility, as long as men make choices with their lives that fit his traditionalist worldview. He does not seem to encourage men to take responsibility in standing up for themselves against women who mistreat them. He appears to be stumped on how men should take self-responsibility in their interactions with women. On how men should deal with crazy women and how to simply learn to say no to these women, call them out on their bullshit, stand up for themselves and walk away from them.

 

His simplistic view that MGTOW are just not attracting women and therefore there is a problem with these men and they should work on it, is a strawman he is fully aware is false. MGTOW won’t bow to gynocentrism and Jordan does not understand how men could not put women at the center of the universe, therefore there is something wrong with them. Jordan is aware of the heavy bias against men in family court and divorce and then counters that by saying not all women are like that[13]. Yeah that is right, but not all women have to be like that for the risk to be too high for many men to not choose marriage and family. Not all areas of a minefield have mines, but you only have to step on one to end your own life. The numbers on divorce and family court outcomes etc are not trivial, they are substantial. The consequences can range from financial servitude and imprisonment by your ex-wife, right up to men taking their own lives. Something tells me that if we reversed the sexes, Jordan would have no qualms in discouraging women from getting married and having children. Taking precautions to protect yourself from a predatory gynocentric social system (metoo, VAWA, college campus policies, divorce and family court etc), is not just smart, it is taking self-responsibility. Once you don’t follow Jordan’s gynocentric pathway to what a man is, self-care and taking responsibility for your own well-being as a man, does not appear to be what Jordan has in mind regarding responsibility.

 

Jordan simply cannot comprehend men going their own way and deciding what to do with their own lives, beyond the traditional gynocentric pathway. Like Christina Hoff Sommers, Jordan speaks a lot of truths, but he says a lot of things that are seriously flawed too and frequently omits valid and well warranted scrutiny of the supposedly “fairer” sex in the problems facing the relations between the sexes. We should not be ignoring that in the manosphere. Paul Elam[14], Karen Straughan[15],  Peter Wright[16], Stardusk[17] and others have called him out on these erroneous opinions and omissions. I would strongly encourage people to watch and read all of that criticism of Peterson which I have linked to this article, before they blindly follow every word he says. I like the guy mostly, but I do find his wilful ignorance and selective application of his own principles where they conflict with gynocentrism very irritating. It is the “playing it safe” strategy of so many social critics these days. Criticise easy targets everyone agrees is wrong with the culture and then ignore the difficult problems like gynocentrism. Men and boys deserve better.

 

A Return To Chivalry Is Not The Answer
Last week we had the mainstream media in Australia go into meltdown over remarks made by Senator David Leyonhjelm, in response to comments allegedly made by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. I will not be discussing that in this article, as it has already been discussed in a previous AVFM article linked here[18]. What I was more interested in was observing and discussing the ease with which the mainstream media on both sides of the political spectrum, were quite willing to quickly condemn Senator Leyonhjelm for his comments and almost entirely let Sarah Hanson-Young’s alleged comments go without scrutiny. There were exceptions. This week Senator Cory Bernardi has also spoken out[19] against Sarah Hanson-Young’s commentary in Parliament and had quite a few things to say about her conduct in the senate. As the saying goes, “people in glass houses should not throw stones”.

 

One response though that was particularly intriguing, came from columnist Miranda Devine in her article, “Leyonhjelm shows women lose in post-chivalry world”[20] . Her article which I have read requires a subscription to access, her interview on the article is linked here[21] for those that do not have access. Like Jordan, there is a lot of what Miranda says I agree with, however I do not agree with her comments regarding male chivalry and her criticism of David Leyonhjelm. I am not a supporter or opponent of David Leyonhjelm, but I don’t blame him or condemn him for responding in the way he did. It is about time that a politician stood up to the pervasive misandry in our governments. In her article, Miranda warns women that the senators remarks were a glimpse into what future society is going to look like, in a world without male chivalry. Miranda goes on to explain how chivalry is a tradition that takes advantage of men’s protective instincts and uses them to serve the supposedly “weaker” sex. Chivalry is indeed a tradition of male service to benefit women without reciprocity. It places women above men. It is a tradition that encourages one standard of accountability for men and a lower standard of accountability for women toward the opposite sex.

 

Women might be physically weaker than men, but the last time I checked they have all the same rights and privileges men do in Western society and some people make solid arguments they actually have more. Women are quite capable of being just as vicious verbally and socially as any man and many would probably argue they are more capable. Women are not the fragile powerless snowflakes some people would have men believe. Women and girls are excelling at every level of education over men and boys and doing quite well in the workforce. They enjoy a multibillion dollar international feminist empire that puts their interests ahead of everything else in numerous sectors of Western society. This exclusive support for women and girls pervades the mainstream media, academia, legal system and education system, politics, private industry, government policy and public health just to name a few areas. We even have entire government departments devoted to women and girls. There is no comparable set of organisations or level of support for men and boys. I think I speak for a lot of men and boys, when I say we are getting sick and tired of women and girls pretending they are weak and vulnerable creatures when there is a wealth of evidence to the contrary.

 

Chivalry is a bigoted tradition that enabled the very demonisation of men and boys that Miranda later discusses in her article, to go on unchecked and without opposition for decades. If women in politics or in the mainstream media want to make bigoted generalisations about the opposite sex, then shielding them from the consequences with chivalry is not the answer. All it does is keep the cycle of demonising the male half of the population growing and growing without opposition. If you make bigoted remarks about the opposite sex, then you are not the victim and that suddenly does not change when the person making the bigoted remarks happens to be female. Chivalry does not have a place in a modern society where women have equal rights and freedoms to that of men. If you make bigoted remarks against men, you do not get to play the victim because the men around you respond in a manner you do not approve of. Several years ago Miranda Devine discussed a concept called, “Female Entitlement Mentality”[22]. It takes a sense of entitlement to expect men to behave like gentlemen toward women that act like bigots. Indeed Peter Wright wrote an article[23] discussing a research study showing the link between entitlement in women and their disposition to support chivalry in men. Women have no place lecturing men about acting like gentlemen, when feminist lecturers write articles in the Washington Post titled, “Why can’t we hate men?”[24]. It is time for women to get off their pedestal and start taking accountability for their own words and behaviour. If you want men to be respectful toward you, then be respectful toward them. Two thousand years ago, a man called Jesus spoke of a simple concept to treat others the way you would like to be treated.

 

I certainly think women have it in them to empathise with men, accept accountability for their own choices and for their behaviour and words toward men. Karen Straughan’s own blog is called, “owning your shit”[25]. The name says it all regarding accountability. There are plenty of other examples of women displaying these qualities I have come across both online and in my personal life. A more recent example for instance popped up on my YouTube feed over the weekend. Her name is Sydney Watson. Here are two videos of hers for people to look at regarding recent events in Australia concerning men and feminism, link[26] and link[27]. Of course there are the Honey Badgers, Janice Fiamengo and numerous other women.

 

I am not buying the idea women can’t overcome gynocentrism, anymore than the false assumption men cannot overcome gynocentrism. Sure there are challenges, but gynocentism can be overcome provided it is recognised as a problem by society and a pathology that should be discouraged. As I explained in my article on normalising gynocentrism[28], gynocentrism is so common because we have normalised it. Encouraging women that go against the gynocentric grain of the culture and holding women and girls accountable for their words and actions toward men and boys, would be a key step in the right direction in reducing gynocentrism in society. We most likely are never going to completely eliminate gynocentrism to absolute zero, just as we will never completely eliminate obesity. We will always have a residual level of pathological behaviour in society because human beings are imperfect. However we can reduce gynocentrism by a considerable degree from its present levels and make it far less common and a fringe behaviour rather than a normal behaviour in society. We have the behavioural control to do that as discussed in my earlier article, but only if we recognise gynocentrism for the pathological set of behaviours it is and we make an effort to reduce it.

 

I am certainly not suggesting Miranda does not have empathy for men, she has spoken[29] at an international men’s conference. Like Jordan there are a lot of things I like about Miranda and agree with her on. However I am not going to remain silent when I see gynocentric double standards being encouraged and I do not care who it is from. Male chivalry toward women is a tradition of gynocentric double standards. Dr. Warren Farrell had a famous saying, “women can’t hear what men do not say”. As long as men remain silent for fear of offending women, absolutely nothing is going to change and that silence will contribute to gynocentrism remaining normalised in the culture. So start speaking your mind to women if you are a man and stop self-censoring, because it is about time men found their voice. That is why A Voice For Men exists. Use the platform. Calling men and women out on their gynocentric bullshit is not spreading hate, it is generating powerful and badly needed cultural change and demanding an end to hypocrisy and sexist bigotry.

 

References:

[1]  ONLY Patriarchy Builds Nations * / & other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS. Black Pigeon Speaks. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[2] Traditionalism vs. traditionalism. Peter Wright & Paul Elam. A Voice For Men. (Accessed July 2018).

[3] Fempocalypse!!. Girlwriteswhat. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[4] Research Shows ONLY MEN Pay Taxes. Black Pigeon Speaks. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[5] The Consequences Of Fatherlessness. National Center For Fathering. (Accessed July 2018).

[6] The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It. Dr. Warren Farrell & Dr. John Gray (2018).

[7] DEATH BY WELFARE. Stefan Molyneux. FreeDomain Radio. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[8] Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism. Channel 4 News. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[9] Tucker On Single Motherhood w/ Dr. Warren Farrell | HBR Debate 8. Honey Badger Radio. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[10] Jordan Peterson – I Regret Calling MGTOW Pathetic Weasels. Bite-Sized Philosophy (Taken from the original interview prepared by Transliminal Media). YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[11] Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women Like Women More Than Men Like Men? Rudman, Laurie A.,Goodwin, Stephanie A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 87(4), Oct 2004, 494-509

[12] Jordan Peterson – Men Can’t Control Crazy Women. Bite-Sized Philosophy. Original source: Jordan B Peterson. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[13] Jordan Peterson responds to MGTOW backlash. Davie Addison. Original source: Rubin Report. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[14] Jordan Peterson Steps In It (MGTOW). An Ear For Men. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[15] Response to Jordan Peterson’s comments on MGTOW. Karen Straughan. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[16] The Gynocentrism Of Jordan Peterson. Peter Wright. A Voice For Men. (Accessed July 2018).

[17] Jordan Peterson | The Responsible Man. Stardusk/Thinking Ape. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[18] A man takes a stand. Mark Dent. A Voice For Men. (Accessed July 2018).

[19] Bernardi on Sarah Hanson Young. Liberal Democrats (Australia). YouTube. (Accessed July 2018). Original source: 2GB.

[20] Leyonhjelm shows women lose in post-chivalry world. Miranda Devine. The Daily Telegraph. July 4th 2018 (Accessed July 2018).

[21] ‘Sarah Hanson and the greens are demonising men’ | Miranda Devine on David Leyonhjelm | Today. News Bite Global. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018). Original Source: Sunrise – Channel 7 Australia

[22] Women believe they live in the age of entitlement. Miranda Devine. The Daily Telegraph May 20th 2012. (Accessed July 2018).

[23] Can women be chivalrous? Damn right they can. Peter Wright. A Voice For Men. (Accessed July 2012).

[24] Why Can’t We Hate Men? Suzanna Danuta Walters. The Washington Pos. June 8th 2018. (Accessed July 2018).

[25] Karen Straughan http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/

[26] WE NEED TO TEACH MEN NOT TO RAPE?. Sydney Watson. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[27] 4 REASONS WHY FEMINISM IS FULL OF HYPOCRISY. Sydney Watson. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[28] The Normalisation Of Gynocentrism. Peter Ryan. A Voice For Men. (Accessed July 2018).

[29] ICMI’17 Miranda Devine – Feminism’s Final Salvo. An Ear For Men. (Accessed July 2018).

The Normalisation Of Gynocentrism

I would like to recognise the contributions of Paul Elam and Peter Wright in providing the foundational works in Chasing The Dragon and Slaying The Dragon published on A Voice For Men, that inspired this article. To quote Sir Isaac Newton, “If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

 

Civilisation is based on the capacity of human beings to control and manage their instinctual and emotional responses and behave in an intelligent manner. The degree to which that capacity is eroded by lack of self-awareness, lack of cultural wisdom, lack of discipline, fatherlessness and superresponses to superstimuli, is the degree to which civilisation will decline, regress and then implode. This ancient understanding that natural impulses can be destructive when taken to extremes, was known thousands of years ago. As discussed in Paul Elam and Peter Wright’s article, “Slaying the dragon”[1], this understanding was a major foundational element of many religions and addressed in cultural mythology, such as the seven deadly sins of Christianity and the story of Odysseus resisting the Sirens call. This ancient wisdom was recognised as key not just to the well-being of individuals, but also to the survival of civilisations over history. It is important to note that fathers have played a major role in teaching children to postpone gratification and regulate their instinctual and emotional impulses, as we have seen from Dr. Warren Farrell’s research[2] into the boy crisis. Unsurprisingly and predictably, fatherlessness has been one of the main factors driving the decline of Western civilisation.

 

There is a distinction between pathological behaviour and instinct. Just because a behaviour is driven by instinct, does not then make the behaviour healthy or biologically optimal to Darwinian fitness. Overeating is driven by instinct and can kill you before you reproduce (and even prevent you from finding a mate in the first place). There is also a distinction between gynocentrism and human instincts. Gynocentrism is not itself an instinct but rather a product of human instinct, emotional impulses and cultural conditioning. Gynocentrism is a set of complex and pathological behaviours that arise from a superresponse to superstimuli associated with sex, neoteny, the parental brain and pair bonding. See the article, “Chasing the dragon”[3] for more information.

 

Many animals and especially human beings, have a capacity to regulate and control their behavioural responses to instinctual and emotional impulses from the lower areas of the brain. We have a well developed prefrontal cortex and other areas of the cerebral cortex, that have been shown in neuroscientific research[4] to keep our behavioural responses to instincts in check. Whilst we may have no control over feeling our primal urges, we do have control over whether we decide to act on them and base decisions on them. We may experience anger, fear and sexual attraction, but we can control whether or not we act on our instincts and impulses. It is a scientific fact we have the capacity to control our behaviour and override our instinctual impulses. It is also a readily provable fact and the reason why we have a legal system. We recognise people have self-control over their decisions and actions.

 

People go on hunger strikes and die from it, despite having a hunger instinct and survival instinct. There are numerous other examples of people overriding their survival instinct. Extreme sports, stunts from escape artists and countless acts of bravery in war being such examples. There are numerous examples of people overriding their sexual instincts too. There are heterosexual men that remain celibate their entire lives in the clergy on purpose. There are even in this hypersexualised culture, sizeable communities of people that still practice sexual abstinence before marriage. We have enormous control over our behaviour. People do not see attractive people and then jump their bones and immediately have sex with them in public (we call that rape by the way, which is a crime)!

 

We have self-control and it is considerable in it’s power. It is worth considering that in the context of gynocentrism and the underlying superresponse to superstimuli. Whilst the superresponse leading to gynocentrism may indeed be strong, so is our ability to regulate our own behaviour. In fact our ability to control our own behaviour, can be that extreme it can actually kill us. It is also the case that through self-discipline, training and neuroplasticity, we can actually strengthen our neurological capacity to regulate our behaviour even further. Fathers play a key role in developing that neurological capacity in children, through teaching them to postpone gratification. We certainly have the capability to overcome gynocentrism.

 

The literal interpretation of free will might be an illusion, but self-control does exist and we have parts of the brain dedicated to exercising self-control. The fact the neurological process of self-control may in part lie beyond our conscious awareness, does not negate the fact we can and do regulate our behaviour and suppress our instincts and emotional impulses very often. It is what makes Homo sapiens, “sapien” or wise. Our ability to postpone gratification of our instincts and impulses and control when, where and even if we choose to satisfy them, is one of the major traits responsible for allowing our species to do what no other animal on this planet has done- create civilisation.

 

The assumption (which is precisely what it is), that gynocentrism is some insurmountable and hardwired instinct and behaviour we are slaves to, is complete and utter nonsense. That is not to say gynocentrism is not difficult to overcome or that it is not a powerful force within society. But it is not an omnipotent force either. It does not matter how many times it is said, there will still be some people that will call you a denier of biology if you dare to make the claim gynocentrism is not an immutable part of human behaviour. All of human behaviour is biological in part. Not just gynocentrism. Stating that gynocentrism is biological, certainly does not then automatically mean that it is immutable and insurmountable.

 

Gynocentrism is a pathological set of behaviours driven by instincts and emotional impulses, just like overeating and obesity is driven by the hunger instinct. It does not automatically follow that the instincts and emotional processes that are involved in gynocentrism, will invariably and always produce gynocentrism. Just like it does not always follow that the hunger instinct will lead to overeating and obesity, or that the sexual instinct will lead to rape.

 

Gynocentrism is merely one of many manifestations of the sexual instinct, desire to pair bond, our emotional response to neoteny and our parental brain. The same general emotional response to neoteny drives millions of people daily to dog videos on YouTube. The same parental brain is active when raising children. The reason why gynocentrism is so common in society, is because unlike obesity and other addictive and pathological behaviours like smoking, we do not shame people for it or discourage it or teach people about the harms it will cause. People understand the risks of overeating, obesity and smoking and people are discouraged from doing it by wider society (with the exception of the fat acceptance people). People go to jail if they indiscriminately act on their sexual instincts.

 

We normalise gynocentrism and actually encourage it. Imagine if we normalised and encouraged smoking again? Gynocentrism is common because we normalise it in the culture. The culture at large reinforces and conditions us from a very early age, to train our instincts and emotional responses to produce gynocentric behaviour. Contrary to the opinion of some armchair evolutionary biologists, gynocentrism does not enhance the capacity of the species to perpetuate itself. Exhibiting indiscriminate deference to addressing the needs and wants of women and girls above everything else (the definition of gynocentrism), actually causes the complete opposite. It leads to extinction. It is not really hard to imagine how lopsided and imbalanced priorities could lead to dysfunctional and suboptimal outcomes in a complex system like society. The only reason why gynocentrism has not yet caused mass calamity, is because gynocentrism like obesity was kept at bay for most of human history from getting too big of a problem. Thanks to the imperative and focus we had to maintain on our survival as a community and as individuals and the limited means of communication over most of history, conditions simply did not permit gynocentrism to grow to a point where it threatened the survival of society. Only fairly recently over the last few centuries and particularly over the last 50 years, has that changed and these changes have allowed gynocentrism to mushroom.

 

Once survival became less of an issue and safety, prosperity, nutrition and human health improved by many orders of magnitude and society became mechanised and women gained control over their fertility, the constraints on gynocentrism growing beyond a certain threshold were removed and societal focus began to shift more and more from survival to a gynocentric lens. Combined with these changes were communication technologies that allowed superstimuli to have an unprecedented mass effect on the population. The printing press, television, computers, smartphones, the internet and so forth, have allowed superstimuli to have much greater effects on conditioning human behaviour and the psychological development of children than ever before. Marketing in particular has made multibillion dollar industries out of exploiting superstimuli.

 

As a result of these changes, gynocentrism has rapidly grown over the last few centuries and particularly the last 50 years. We now have runaway gynocentrism. Eventually like a runaway train approaching a cliff, runaway gynocentrism will destroy civilisation if society does not find the brakes in time. We have in my estimation about 20 years before we reach that cliff and society runs off the rails into the abyss. It is now a race against the clock to wake as many people up from their hypnotic daze as we can.

 

We can see right now the fertility rates plummeting in every developed nation, thanks to constantly pandering to the needs and wants of women and girls. Social scientists are calling it the “demographic winter”[5]. Pandering to the princess culture and female entitlement mentality (as Australian columnist Miranda Devine calls it)[6], does not produce offspring. Societies that succumb to runaway gynocentrism die out. Of course there are also long term consequences building from decades of neglect of boys needs in the education system and the epidemic of fatherlessness, that will threaten the social cohesion and economic prosperity of a number of developed nations in the coming decades. Not only will gynocentric societies shrink and then die out, they will descend into poverty, crime and civil unrest before they disappear.

 

Gynocentrism is widespread because we consider it to be normal and the culture reinforces it as a good thing. Imagine how much more common obesity or gambling addiction would be if the culture normalised and encouraged overeating and gambling? Imagine how much more common overeating and obesity and gambling and gambling addiction would be if you were encouraged to overeat and gamble from birth? Why do we consider gynocentrism to be normal? There are ten reasons or causes for this:

 

The Influence Of Women

Part of the reason gynocentrism is normal, is because it is encouraged by women. A casino does not want to discourage you from gambling your life savings. Women generally speaking, do not want to discourage men from getting married despite being fully aware of the biased divorce and family court process. There is no incentive for women to discourage men from gynocentrism and every incentive to do the complete opposite and they do. The difference between gynocentrism and the casino example, is that women constitute half of society and also raise you from birth and casino’s do not. The food industry as powerful as they are, are not half of the population and are not your mother. When you consider the role of women in men’s lives as mothers, sisters, wives and girlfriends and the fact women generally are part of the most important and intimate relationships men have in their lives, it is not difficult to see how gynocentrism can be spread and become normalised in society if women promote it. When women constitute the voting majority and control the majority of consumer spending, it is not hard to see how gynocentrism can become mainstream in the economy and in politics. That is especially true when women exercise an in-group bias, which research studies[7] report is the case. On top of those realities is the fact men can and do white knight for female attention and approval. The enforcement of women’s desires on the rest of society, through female control over legions of male simps, politicians and corporations, cannot be overlooked in normalising gynocentrism in the culture.

 

The Change In Family Structure

The change in family structure over the last fifty years, has also played a major role in the normalisation of gynocentrism. We learn the gynocentric social mode of behaviour to a significant degree from our childhood upbringing in the household. When boys and girls are raised to adopt and expect male chivalry, then it is likely that behaviour will be exhibited by them when they get older. When boys and girls are raised with the message it is never okay to hit a woman, but never told the message it is never okay to hit a man, they internalise that double standard. Over the last fifty years there has been dramatic changes in family structure. Many children are now being raised in fatherless homes from birth, or have been alienated from their fathers through divorce and family court. The lack of an adult male influence in the home combined with a lack of men in the education system, exacerbates gynocentric double standards being internalised in children and future generations. We also know the important role fathers play in teaching boys and girls to regulate their emotional and instinctual impulses, through teaching them to postpone gratification. We are now starting to see the impact of fathers being removed from the family, in the declining social behaviour of wider society. We now have groups of young people and political movements fuelled entirely on emotional impulse and the abandonment of reason and evidence (SJW’s, university campus feminists, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, the women’s marches etc being examples). We are living in a post factual world, where what feels good is more important than what is true. This is what happens in a fatherless society and it will eventually lead to societal collapse as it gets worse.

 

The Prosperity Of Modern Civilisation

A subtle reason for why we consider gynocentrism to be normal, is because the prosperity of modern civilisation cushions society from the consequences of it in the short term. Our current debt based monetary system and welfare state, combined with major advances in technology, allows society to pass on the costs of ignoring major social problems onto future generations. It takes years, decades and in some cases centuries, before the severe and long-lasting consequences of gynocentrism hit individuals and society. So society does not learn very easily to do draw a link between gynocentric behaviour and the consequences of such behaviour. You do not immediately feel the consequences of divorce and family court when you marry a female psychopath. Economies do not feel the burden straight away of large numbers of unemployed men arising from decades of inaction on addressing the boy crisis in education. Societies do not feel the consequences of fatherlessness straight away either or the long-term consequences of social witch-hunts like metoo#. Universities do not immediately feel the financial consequences of lawsuits against them from men falsely accused of rape, resulting from university policies enacted from the Dear Colleague letter.

 

Virtue Signalling

Gynocentrism is also normalised because on the surface it appears to be good behaviour, feels good and is therefore encouraged by the culture. However when considered with more thoughtful and detailed examination, it can be seen that this is not the case. White knighting appears to be a noble act on the surface, but not when we look into the details of what is going on. Human beings are prone to surface thinking, simple heuristic thinking and emotional bias. Marketing is so successful because it takes full advantage of these biases and cognitive shortcuts human perception employs to make sense of the world (see the elaboration likelihood model[8] for more info and check out the central versus peripheral route to persuasion). What may look and feel good and righteous on the surface, is not always the case.

 

The Proliferation Of Gynocentric Superstimuli And Mass Communication

Of course it is also predictable that gynocentrism will be normalised when our environment is swamped with superstimuli, that trains our brains through conditioning over many years to operate in a gynocentric mode. This consistent exposure has long term effects on the brain through neuroplasticity. When gynocentric superstimuli is all you are exposed to every waking hour from birth until death and there is so much social pressure on you to conform to gynocentric social norms, it is predictable gynocentrism will be normalised in the society in question. We have a plethora of laws against broadcasting violent ads, shows and movies and against promoting gambling and yet nothing like that for gynocentrism. When you combine gynocentric superstimuli with modern communication in the form of the internet, television, computers and smartphones, you have the perfect delivery system to condition society and normalise gynocentric behaviour.

 

The Gynocentric Mainstream Media

Following on from the previous section, the mainstream media plays a key role in normalising gynocentrism. The gynocentric vomit coming out daily from major news outlets is constant. We have articles titled, “Why Can’t We Hate Men?”[9] from the Washington Post and “The End Of Men”[10] from the Atlantic. Imagine for a moment if we substituted men with Jews in such articles. Such material would not look out of place in Nazi propaganda. Men are being dehumanised by the media and the media are spreading outrageous bigotry that would never be tolerated if the sexes were reversed. The media has shown time and time again, they are pushing a gynocentric and female supremacist narrative onto society. They have ceased being news outlets and now essentially spread feminist and gynocentric man hating propaganda. The media does shape the attitudes and beliefs of society and also shapes politics and propaganda does work as we have seen from numerous examples throughout history. We are fortunate now to have alternative media finally rising up against this hatred of men, to challenge it directly. AVFM is one example of this. However the mainstream media has had a multidecade headstart on the alternative media to shape society and still has considerable influence, despite their falling subscriptions and viewers.

 

Reductionism

There is a reductionist bent in society to not look at the bigger picture. We often fail to see the connection between things and how things are interrelated in society. There is a tendency to assign responsibility or consequence to one thing, person or cause. This feeds not just into normalising gynocentrism, but into letting other problems in society grow too. Society is a system and systems theory would help enormously in understanding and correctly dealing with societal problems, particularly social problems. Taking a wholistic and systems approach to understanding the world, can be far more effective than perceiving the world solely through a reductionist lens. Take school shootings for example. We could prevent such tragedies from occurring if we bothered take a wholistic systems based perspective on the problem. Instead of blaming it all on toxic masculinity, how about we look at fatherlessness and mental health. As society becomes more and more connected, taking a wholistic systems based approach to addressing social problems is going to be more and more relevant.

 

When we examine the behaviour of men and women in society, it is often solely discussed and framed along gynocentric lines by the media and by the culture. We look at men’s behaviour toward women in isolation from women. We do not even consider women are agents in society and we fail to see how the behaviour of men and women toward the opposite sex, feedback on each other. The feminist narrative on domestic violence is one such example of this. Domestic violence is often reciprocal in nature[11] and yet we do not hear on the reciprocal nature of domestic violence. When we hear about men’s violence toward women only, its causes are framed along the lines of power and control by the feminist Duluth model. No other cause or factor is apparently at play in contributing to men’s violence. The role of alcohol, substance abuse, poverty, mental illness and abuse during childhood, is all overlooked and ignored.

 

When society fosters a reductionist perspective on looking at the world and does not consider a wholistic or systems perspective, it encourages gynocentrism to grow and spread. Gynocentrism is by its nature reductionist. Having a one-dimensional perspective of relating everything solely to how they impact women and girls, is much easier to spread and normalise in a society that is highly politically polarised and has a general reductionist mindset to looking at the world that is encouraged by ideologues in the media and academia. Even in biology and the sciences, we can see how reductionism holds back progress in understanding the natural world. Systems biology[12] is a rapidly developing interdisciplinary field at the forefront of life science research, that aims to go beyond a reductionist perspective, correct this limitation in scientific knowledge and develop a more accurate wholistic systems understanding of biology.

 

Biology is complex and is composed of multiple systems at multiple levels, from cell signalling pathways all the way up to entire ecosystems. When we examine what is required for evolutionary success and for genes to be successfully passed on from one generation to the next, it is not as simple as saying it is all about reproductive success. Reproduction is essential, but so is survival. An organism must survive to reproduce and it’s offspring must survive to successfully mate, otherwise it would be as if the offspring were never produced in the first place. Reproducing once may not be sufficient either and an organism may need to survive long enough to mate multiple times, to ensure they produce enough offspring that survive to sexual maturity and pass on the genes. An organism must develop a strategy in investing energy, resources and time in survival versus reproduction, that is optimised to their environment and biology, to guarantee evolutionary success.

 

Evolutionary success is far more complex than simply just reproducing. If that were not the case and reproduction was really all that mattered, then the only life that would have evolved on Earth would have been asexual microbial life. There are selective advantages for species that reproduce more slowly, but have a more complex biology that can better adapt to, tolerate, manipulate and extract resources from the local environment. These selective advantages are partly what gave rise to the proliferation of multicellular life[13]. Think for a moment about the thousands of lineages that have continued their existence today, because of the civilisation and technological advances men have created and been responsible for. Think of the billions of people alive today because of the intrinsic value men have provided to society. There are entire lineages that would have been extinguished long ago and billions of people that would not have been born, without the intrinsic value men have provided in creating the advanced civilisation we enjoy and modern technology.

 

Simply reproducing, especially for a slowly reproducing species like Humans, is simply not enough to ensure evolutionary success. That is why men have been sexually and naturally selected, to develop traits to enable them to provide, protect, discover, explore, invent, build, maintain, repair and fight for society. It is not as simple as saying one man can reproduce with ten women, therefore men are disposable. Biology is far more complex than that. Notice no one seems to consider how one man can change the world and lead to an extra couple of hundred million people existing and passing on their genes. Think of the impact a handful of men in society have had on civilisation over the last two centuries and by extension the evolutionary success of the species. Think of how many less people there would be without electricity, machinery, antibiotics, modern medicine and modern agriculture that men were mostly responsible for. How many family genetic lineages have continued existing because of these technological advances by men and have avoided termination as a result?

 

Successfully passing on the genes is not solely about sexual intercourse. Biology is more complex than that. Many other things have to occur before and after sexual intercourse, to ensure genes are passed on successfully. The value men bring to the survival of the community and to society is unique. Despite what feminists claim, women really cannot do everything a man can do or just as well (Women are not inferior. Men and women just have different strengths.). Men remain the majority of our leading scientists, thinkers, inventors, political and business thinkers etc, despite all of the feminist social engineering to artificially lift women up. Human adult males are also not immediately replaceable either, especially talented and gifted men. It takes roughly 18 years before they reach physical maturity (25 years if we are talking about the brain) and a great deal of parental investment compared to other animals. Our failure to recognise that treating men as disposable is to treat civilisation as disposable, will eventually lead to the implosion of civilisation. Even if we consider men as machines, we all recognise what happens when you do not look after your car and do not change the oil. Either we unlearn the cultural belief men are disposable, or we can watch society start falling apart. Adopting a wholistic systems perspective and going beyond a simple reductionist mode of thinking, would help us unlearn the erroneous cultural belief men are disposable.

 

Gynocentric Authority, Institutions And Herd Mentality

Much of the influence in what shapes social behaviour comes from the top of society and from authorities like the government and institutions like university. Gynocentrism has been normalised in part because we have practiced it for centuries and our key institutions, leaders, celebrities and elite practice it, endorse it and impose it on the rest of us. We even enshrine gynocentrism into law. There have been a number of psychological studies since WW2 showing how easily people blindly follow authority and rules (the infamous Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment[14] being one such example) and how powerful institutional environments and rules are in shaping group and individual behaviour (that partly explains a lot about how Nazism came to power and how millions of people were exterminated without anyone speaking out against it). The power of the herd mentality of human beings to follow authority and a minority of individuals, cannot be understated. Many people simply do not think for themselves and this reality allows a minority of people like feminists, to easily control large groups of people once they hold positions of authority in institutions and government.

 

Slavery was considered normal for centuries by our leaders, authorities and institutions and was widespread, as was barbaric punishment and torture. Only in the last two hundred years or so and after wars and huge political movements and massive legal reform, have slavery and inhumane punishment been mostly abolished and outlawed. People had the same arguments about slavery being natural and inevitable in the past, as people do today about gynocentrism. Just like back then, the arguments today about gynocentrism being inevitable, do not have substance when you examine them more closely. This is the naturalistic fallacy in action. The fact gynocentrism has natural or biological underpinnings, does not then mean it is morally acceptable, desirable, inevitable or a healthy expression of human behaviour.

 

The education system out of all of the institutions, plays a key role in normalising gynocentrism. Many boys and girls in school can now go through most of their education from kindergarten to postgraduate education, with few male teachers. The influence of feminist ideology is now present at the primary or elementary level and has been present at the university level for years. The education system has now essentially become a system of feminist indoctrination and gynocentrism. This sort of environment does have impacts on the behaviour of children and the adults they will become. Like the changes in family structure, the feminisaton of the education system has played a major role in spreading and promoting gynocentrism in society.

 

Former KGB agent and defector Uri Bezmenov, warned in an interview more than 30 years ago[15], about the feminist and marxist takeover of our institutions and the ideological subversion of Western democracy. He made some very eerie predictions that help explain today’s society. Controlling the education system is key. He discusses the four stages of the takeover of society by the far left in the interview (demoralisation, destabilisation, crisis and normalisation). He explains the first stage which is called demoralisation. This involves indoctrinating multiple generations of students in far left ideology in the education system. From there these people infect the government, academia, corporations and our institutions and then spread far left ideology within these organisations. He explains how the brainwashing occurring in the education system, corrupts people’s perception to the point where they cannot make logical sense of information. After years of indoctrination, their thinking is bounded within an ideological framework and they cannot see beyond that framework. Sound familiar? It should. Uri was explaining what modern Western society would become 30 years ago. Think of all the revelations that have come out on the working environments of employees in the tech sector and in academia and the disruptive and violent protests on university campuses.

 

Gynocentric Superorganisms

Related to the previous reason behind why gynocentrism is normalised, is the influence of superorganisms on society and how they have succumbed to gynocentrism. MRA blogger Angry Harry, did an excellent series looking at the impact of superorganisms on human behaviour and how powerful they are in shaping it (See Angry Harry’s MRA corner on AVFM and check out the 4 part series titled, “Those Who Rules Over Us”)[16]. Superorganisms in the social context can be thought of as entities comprised of thousands, sometimes millions and even billions of individuals, that appear to mimic the properties of a living organism and wield enormous influence on society. Religions, governments, corporations, institutions and cities are examples of superorganisms. People in this context can be considered cells of these superorganisms. If we look at human civilisation as a superorganism, the slogan “feminism is cancer” is quite fitting.

 

Gynocentrism can be thought of in the context of superorganisms, as the underlying germ of a disease of the superorganism. It infects healthy human cells of the superorganism and then spreads throughout the superorganism. Eventually the superorganism succumbs to gynocentrism and then infects other superorganisms. Feminism could be considered a vector of the gynocentric germ that helps it spread, like how a mosquito is a vector of Malaria. Superorganisms as Angry Harry explained, have enormous influence over our society and the individual behaviour of people. Corporations, governments, religion and institutions shape the way of life for billions of people. Gynocentrism has infested many of these superorganisms and turned them into gynocentric zombies. These infected entities can and have inflicted terrible damage on society. Think of the impact feminist infested universities have had on society. Think of the impact the gynocentric legal system has had on the nuclear family, fathers and the lives of men. Think of the impact the feminised education system has had on the boy crisis in education. Think of the impact the gynocentric bias of the tech sector has had on the information that the public is exposed to and their censorship and filtering of alternative non-gynocentric viewpoints.

 

Learned Helplessness And The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Of Gynocentrism

Men and boys in today’s society to a substantial degree, are exhibiting signs of learned helplessness. Many men and boys have essentially been conditioned to accept that gynocentrism is normal and inescapable. Once men and boys internalise that dangerous false belief, they accept their own marginalisation and disposability every day and in doing so enable gynocentrism to have almost complete dominance over society. Learned helplessness has been linked to depression[17] and is no doubt a major factor driving the epidemic of male suicide. Learned helplessness fuels a self-fulfilling prophecy. If men and boys believe there is no other way to live, then gynocentrism becomes inevitable and this fate then reinforces the belief that gave rise to it. Beliefs can be very destructive things when they go unquestioned, despite leading to highly destructive outcomes. Men going their own way (MGTOW) is a pathway out of gynocentrism for men. It involves unlearning pathological gynocentric beliefs and daring to believe there is another way to live. Whilst it may not be easy to go against the social current of society, it is possible and once the rewards of going your own way become clear, it becomes easier and easier and easier to go your own way. We are social creatures and part of overcoming learned helplessness for men, involves abandoning concern for social ostracism, particularly from women and learning how to identify and manage the risks that a predatory gynocentric society presents, so you can live life in your own way and avoid entrapment and attack.

 

Men and boys are punished for performing and exhibiting their natural masculine nature and at the same time ridiculed for failing to perform and demonstrate a masculine nature. At the same time that men are told they must live up to the hypergamous expectations of women to earn more money than their female counterparts in order to be worthy of a relationship with women, they are cast as privileged oppressors and blamed for the gender pay gap if they do earn more money than women. Men are told they are losers if they do not perform and then are told they are privileged oppressors when they do perform. Women will write articles about “where are all the good men” and then write other articles about the gender wage gap and how we need female quotas in upper management and corporate boards because of male privilege. It is a double bind. Men have no escape from social ostracism if they follow external societal pressures and succumb to herd mentality and social pressure to conform. Such men must accept the message from society they are inferior, violent, privileged and evil oppressors. MGTOW is the healthy alternative. MGTOW involves finding your own way in life, independent of what the culture or society or women expects of you or what they think of you. MGTOW is the only way out for men from the gynocentric prison society has been turned into. To borrow a line from the Shawshank Redemption you either, “get busy living or get busy dying”.

 

The biases in human perception, thinking and behaviour discussed, combined with the changes in family structure, the proliferation of superstimuli with mass communication and the influence of gynocentric institutions, media and authority figures, keep the silent killer that is gynocentrism from being detected and addressed by civilisation and by individuals. To fight this, we need to develop greater self-awareness in society and awareness of what gynocentrism is and the harms it can and does cause. We need organised resistance to gynocentrism to emerge at the individual level of men going their own way and at the collective level of a well-funded and well organised men’s movement to tackle institutional and legalised gynocentrism. Either we address gynocentrism, or the harsh forces of natural selection will remove gynocentric behaviour from the human evolutionary lineage, or worse put the entire human race into the fossil record. For the superorganisms of society, they either rid themselves of gynocentrism or look forward to bankruptcy or collapse. For the individual man, you either overcome gynocentrism or you suffer for it and in some cases lose everything, including your life.

 

It is our choice, we can either do this the easy way or the hard way individually and as a society. It takes discipline to recondition ourselves out of bad habits and develop the self-awareness to recognise and stop bad behaviours. It does not happen overnight. Websites like AVFM, men’s discussion and support groups and male friendly life coaches and mental health professionals, can help with that process. MGTOW helps in a big way in overcoming gynocentrism. MGTOW or men going their own way, is grounded on the fundamental principle of self-control. You cannot go your own way without it! MGTOW and its continued growth is direct proof it is possible for men to overcome years of gynocentric programming, instinctual and emotional impulses and take the red pill. But like I said nothing happens overnight. That goes for individual change and also for societal change. Just because change is slow, does not mean change is impossible or will not eventually lead to profound shifts in people’s lives and the way society functions. Every journey begins with a single first step. It is time men broke free of their psychological bondage and dared to recognise and accept their true intrinsic value, in the face of a gynocentric society that would prefer they did not.

 

It is not just biology at play when we are talking about gynocentrism. Social, political, institutional, economic, informational and cultural factors, are also involved in normalising the social pathology we call gynocentrism. We are indeed living in the matrix of gynocentrism. Most people are still asleep in the matrix. We need to stop normalising gynocentrism by addressing the ten causes responsible for its normalisation discussed earlier. MGTOW and a well funded and organised men’s movement, would go a long way to achieving that objective. We are at a critical period in human civilisation where we need to move beyond outmoded gynocentric ways of thinking and behaving, if we expect civilisation to survive. Technology cannot be uninvented and we cannot return to a traditionalist path. Simply ending feminism will not be sufficient to advance society either. Gynocentrism has now become an unsustainable problem for society.

 

Tens of thousands of years ago when we humans transitioned from a hunter-gatherer existence to primitive civilisation, the dynamics between the sexes changed. Now we face a similar challenge to change those dynamics again, as a result of rapid technological change over the last two centuries. Dr. Warren Farrell has in the past described the need for a gender transition movement, to recognise and address this reality. The Kardashev scale[18] lays out the stage of technological advancement of civilisations. Human civilisation is currently undergoing a transition from a type 0 civilisation, to a type 1 civilisation in which we control all of the energy available on the planet and coming from the parent star (currently we can only make use of a fraction of the energy available). Technologies of a type 1 civilisation include: nuclear fusion and renewable energy on a large scale, the capacity to produce large quantities of antimatter etc. Some of these technologies we have obtained, some we are on the cusp of and other technology is quite a while away.

 

In several decades if everything goes right, we may have a permanent, sizeable and self-sustaining settlement on Mars. All of this civilisational advancement, requires a society that remains socially stable, free, safe, educated and prosperous enough, to permit the required technological progress to occur and to ensure the technology is not used to destroy ourselves. The relationship between men and women forms the backbone of the family and the family forms the backbone of society. Gynocentrism is now threatening to destroy the backbone of the family and of society. We need to wake up, otherwise the future for humanity is looking bleak. External threats like nuclear weapons appear to be well recognised. The same does not seem to apply for gynocentrism and the scale of the threat it poses for the continued existence of human civilisation. This needs to change.

 

References

 

[1] Slaying The Dragon. Peter Wright & Paul Elam, A Voice For Men (2018).-https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/slaying-the-dragon/

[2] The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It. Dr. Warren Farrell & Dr. John Gray (2018)- https://www.amazon.com/Boy-Crisis-Boys-Struggling-About/dp/1942952716

[3] Chasing The Dragon. Peter Wright & Paul Elam, A Voice For Men (2016).- https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/the-supersizing-of-gynocentrism/

[4] Self-Control And The Human Brain: The Neuroscience Of Impulse Control. Elana Glowatz, Medical Daily (2017)- https://www.medicaldaily.com/self-control-and-human-brain-neuroscience-impulse-control-408348

[5] Demographic Winter – the decline of the human family (Full Movie) Rick Stout. Acuity Productions. YouTube (Accessed 2018)-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA

[6] Women believe they live in the age of entitlement. Miranda Devine, The Daily Telegraph (2012)-

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

[7] Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women Like Women More Than Men Like Men? Rudman, Laurie A.,Goodwin, Stephanie A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 87(4), Oct 2004, 494-509- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

[8] Elaboration likelihood model. Wikipedia (Accessed 2018)-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaboration_likelihood_model

[9] Why Can’t We Hate Men? Suzanna Danuta Walters, The Washington Post (2018)- https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.604b61ea305f

[10] The End of Men. Hanna Rosin, The Atlantic (2010)-https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/

[11] Partner Abuse State Of Knowledge Project (PASK) FACTS AND STATISTICS ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AT-A-GLANCE (Accessed 2018)- https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts-and-statistics-at-a-glance/

[12] Systems Biology. Wikipedia (Accessed 2018)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology

[13] How did life become Multicellular?-Mysteries of Life #2. Ben G Thomas. YouTube (Accessed 2018).- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsA0Egyb_I&feature=youtu.be

[14] Stanford Prison Experiment. Wikipedia (Accessed 2018)-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

[15] Uri Bezmenov: Deception Was My Job (Complete) G. Edward Griffin. American Media. All West Video. The Reality Zone. YouTube (Accessed 2018)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4

[16] Angry Harry’s MRA Corner (Accessed 2018)- https://www.avoiceformen.com/angry-harrys-mra-corner/

[17] Learned Helplessness: Seligman’s Theory of Depression (+ Cure). Positive Psychology Program (2018)- https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/learned-helplessness-seligman-theory-depression-cure/

[18] Kardashev scale. Wikipedia (Accessed 2018)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Men, Women And The Importance Of Individuality

Hello and welcome to my site, this will be my first article. What is given below is an article based (with some minor changes) on a YouTube comment I wrote in response to Paul Elam’s excellent video: “So, You Really Want To Compete With Men”. The response resonated with a lot of people and is worth reflecting on at a time in history where we seem to have completely lost perspective on the duality between the sexes and become lost in identity politics and forgotten the value in being an individual. 

Men and women have co-evolved to develop different but complementary biological roles in the continuation of the genome. The male role is based contributing to the survival of the species and the female role is based on contributing to the reproduction of the species. The division of biological function is a recurring pattern seen in complex life and greatly enhances the ability of a species to adapt to the environment and make efficient use of the resources in that environment. This is a key reason for why we have multicellular life. The sexual division of the reproduction and survival imperative, combined with the social organisaton in our species, is one of the greatest contributors to our success as a species.

The different biological roles of men and women have produced different sets of traits, abilities and strengths in the two sexes. But the interesting thing about this pattern is it has emerged through co-evolution between the sexes. The differences between the sexes are causally linked together through sexual selection and natural selective forces. They also are expressed and develop in direct proportion and in relation to each other, thanks to sexual selection, Fishers principle and the fundamental requirements of sexual reproduction in our species of requiring at least one male and one female to produce one child.

It does not make sense to measure men and women by the same yardstick and come out with the conclusion one sex is biologically superior to other, for these reasons. Men and women are measured biologically by different yardsticks. Yardsticks that have co-evolved together in direct proportion with each other, into different but related measures of biological value. It is somewhat like measuring a tiger against a whale and saying one is superior to other. The two animals evolved in completely different evolutionary contexts, with different selective forces acting on them. We used to recognise this reality in our culture. We used to recognise that men and women both had a different but equally valuable contribution to the species. We saw the ridiculousness in the man vs woman paradigm. We do not expect tigers to breathe and swim under water and whales to chase prey on land, so why are we expecting it would be any different with women operating in the male role?

The yardsticks themselves are by no mean’s monolithic either, the reproductive and survival imperative can be fulfilled by employing a variety of abilities and strategies by each sex and this is aided by our large brains and ability to communicate through language and record information and pass on past knowledge. The environment can also vary the types of abilities and strategies employed. Consequently the social dominance hierarchies of each sex, particularly for the male sex are multiple in number. There are multiple alpha’s to some degree for each sex because we actually have multiple hierarchies for each sex. This combined with the cooperation within our species, particularly among males (and there is research to show women select for cooperativeness and altruism in men), has enabled civilisation to form and thrive.

With that all said, the value of a human life goes far beyond simple biological value. The true value of human life for me at least, lies in the unique consciousness, personality and physical form of every individual. Your mental and physical fingerprint is distinctive. It is our uniqueness as individuals that gives us value, because we are all irreplaceable. It is the source of human love. It is why we miss our relatives and partners when they are gone. All of their individuality is what we cherish about our loved ones. There will never be another Stephen Hawking again, there will never be another me again or another Paul Elam or you again. That is how we must define our own self-worth if society is to continue existing and not self-destruct. We have to stop confusing external standards of value that are required to run civilisation (like money), with our own intrinsic value or self-worth. One standard of value is merely a tool to organise society by and the other defines the meaning of our life.

We have to celebrate and realise the irreplaceable value of our own individuality. That is why arts, sports, intellectual pursuits and creativity is so critical to our society. The music, painting, writing, acting, sports, discoveries, theories, inventions and creativity of human beings, is an expression of our own individuality. It is not money that makes us whole, it is being able to express our individuality and sharing it with others. That is why the left are invading the arts, sports and STEM fields etc. They want to crush individuality and make it all about group identity. The recent Star Wars movies are merely one example of many I can name. When a woman earns a Nobel Prize we should be talking about the individual, not about the fact she is a woman and vice versa.

Western civilisation reached it’s current greatness due intellectual enlightenment and the renaissance. During and since that period of time we have celebrated and valued individuality, we have enshrined individual rights into law and the arts, sciences, sports and engineering have exploded with achievements and major developments as a result. It is through valuing individuality and the intrinsic unique value of each individual, that society has flourished. We have accomplished more as a species in the last 400 years, than the previous 180,000 because of this very fact. Cultures that value individuality and integrate that into the outputs of society, will always triumph over cultures that do not.

This is why identity politics, feminism etc are so destructive. Primitive tribalism will do nothing except to destroy Western civilisation and bring on a new dark age. These ideologies that foster group identity, rob people of their intrinsic self-worth and replace it with someone else’s idea of what they think is their value as human beings. You are valued by someone else’s approximation of how well you measure up to their view of group identity. If you are female you are valued by feminists on how well you measure up to their version of the ideal female, screw your individuality. Is it any wonder then that women are reporting they are more miserable and less happy than decades ago? Once that system of control by identity politics is in place and in people’s minds, like a drug addict and a drug dealer, you can condition them to obey you to obtain self-worth, like a dog getting treats. This is perhaps why the left is so vicious, they are like rabid dogs looking to obtain self-worth from their ideological masters, by competing with each other on who can virtue signal the loudest and the best and be recognised as resembling the ideal person of their group.

The only way this will stop, is by training men and women to consider themselves as individuals, encouraging a strong sense of individual self-determination and self-direction and contrasting it with the miserable lives of those that subscribe to group identity, to show everyone the benefits of being an individual. Men going their own way (MGTOW) is playing a key role in that process for men and boys and liberating men from living by someone else’s view of what their value is as a man. Your value as a man, a boy, a woman or a girl, comes from your unique expression of human consciousness and individuality etc, it does not come from an artificial ideological construct on the left or the right side of the political spectrum.

Know thyself and be yourself.